<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2008 (5) TMI 679 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183712</link>
    <description>The tariff concession notification was construed in its scheme and context, so &quot;set up&quot; was not confined to mere formal establishment; it included readiness for commercial use and the grant of service connection. The State could withdraw the concession because it was created by subordinate legislation, and promissory estoppel did not prevent amendment where public interest justified withdrawal. However, the proviso had to be read down to avoid hardship for industries that had substantially complied, had set up their units, and were awaiting service connection due to administrative delay. The appeals succeeded, and individual eligibility was to be examined on the modified construction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 10 Dec 2023 20:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=432170" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (5) TMI 679 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183712</link>
      <description>The tariff concession notification was construed in its scheme and context, so &quot;set up&quot; was not confined to mere formal establishment; it included readiness for commercial use and the grant of service connection. The State could withdraw the concession because it was created by subordinate legislation, and promissory estoppel did not prevent amendment where public interest justified withdrawal. However, the proviso had to be read down to avoid hardship for industries that had substantially complied, had set up their units, and were awaiting service connection due to administrative delay. The appeals succeeded, and individual eligibility was to be examined on the modified construction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183712</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>