<?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>1998 (8) TMI 621 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185319</link>
    <description>Under Section 9(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, royalty is payable on mineral removed or consumed from the leased area. The Supreme Court held that where extracted mineral is crushed and screened before being taken out of the leased area, that processing constitutes consumption within the provision, so the royalty base is not limited to the quantity remaining after removal of waste and foreign matter. The distinction between removal from the mine and removal from the leased area was rejected. Royalty was therefore payable on the mineral as extracted before processing, and the Revenue&#039;s demand stood upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Aug 2016 17:23:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=437789" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (8) TMI 621 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185319</link>
      <description>Under Section 9(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, royalty is payable on mineral removed or consumed from the leased area. The Supreme Court held that where extracted mineral is crushed and screened before being taken out of the leased area, that processing constitutes consumption within the provision, so the royalty base is not limited to the quantity remaining after removal of waste and foreign matter. The distinction between removal from the mine and removal from the leased area was rejected. Royalty was therefore payable on the mineral as extracted before processing, and the Revenue&#039;s demand stood upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185319</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>