<?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>1989 (3) TMI 385 - Calcutta High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188458</link>
    <description>Promissory estoppel did not compel customs authorities to grant project-import assessment where the sponsoring authority&#039;s endorsement was only conditional and the customs officer retained an independent statutory duty to assess eligibility. Heading 84.66 was also confined to imports for a specifically notified industrial plant or project, and a film-processing laboratory could not qualify merely because it was an industrial activity. In the absence of evidence that the laboratory was specifically covered by the tariff entry, the claim for concessional assessment failed and the refusal to register the contract was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Mar 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2016 15:09:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450217" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (3) TMI 385 - Calcutta High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188458</link>
      <description>Promissory estoppel did not compel customs authorities to grant project-import assessment where the sponsoring authority&#039;s endorsement was only conditional and the customs officer retained an independent statutory duty to assess eligibility. Heading 84.66 was also confined to imports for a specifically notified industrial plant or project, and a film-processing laboratory could not qualify merely because it was an industrial activity. In the absence of evidence that the laboratory was specifically covered by the tariff entry, the claim for concessional assessment failed and the refusal to register the contract was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Mar 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188458</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>