<?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>2017 (7) TMI 1286 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280002</link>
    <description>Ordinary earth excavated for foundation work and reused within the same thermal power project for refilling pits was not treated as a minor mineral under the 03.02.2000 notification, because the controlling test is its end use. The notification covers ordinary earth only when used for filling or levelling in embankments, roads, railways, buildings and similar purposes outside the excavation context. As the earth was not removed for commercial exploitation or a use contemplated by the notification, royalty and penalty under Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 were not attracted and the impugned order was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2019 14:34:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=567015" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 1286 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280002</link>
      <description>Ordinary earth excavated for foundation work and reused within the same thermal power project for refilling pits was not treated as a minor mineral under the 03.02.2000 notification, because the controlling test is its end use. The notification covers ordinary earth only when used for filling or levelling in embankments, roads, railways, buildings and similar purposes outside the excavation context. As the earth was not removed for commercial exploitation or a use contemplated by the notification, royalty and penalty under Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 were not attracted and the impugned order was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280002</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>