<?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>2021 (10) TMI 134 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413082</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court reinstated notifications modifying excise duty exemptions challenged by a public limited company under the Northeastern Industrial Policy. The Court dismissed writ petitions based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel. An interim order for refund of excise duties was issued, later requiring repayment post-final decision. The petitioner&#039;s application for a special rate for value addition was initially rejected as time-barred, but the High Court directed reconsideration due to the unique circumstances arising post-Supreme Court judgment. The writ petition was allowed, emphasizing the petitioner&#039;s legal right despite procedural delays.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Apr 2022 10:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=657558" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (10) TMI 134 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413082</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court reinstated notifications modifying excise duty exemptions challenged by a public limited company under the Northeastern Industrial Policy. The Court dismissed writ petitions based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel. An interim order for refund of excise duties was issued, later requiring repayment post-final decision. The petitioner&#039;s application for a special rate for value addition was initially rejected as time-barred, but the High Court directed reconsideration due to the unique circumstances arising post-Supreme Court judgment. The writ petition was allowed, emphasizing the petitioner&#039;s legal right despite procedural delays.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413082</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>