<?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>1984 (8) TMI 48 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27290</link>
    <description>A subordinate excise exemption notification issued under delegated legislation becomes operative only on due publication in the Official Gazette, not merely on the date printed on the notification. The Madras HC stated that where a fiscal notification of general application is required to be published, it must be made available to the public before it takes effect. On the facts, the withdrawal notification was placed on sale after its stated date, so the earlier exemption continued until effective publication. Duty collected for the intervening period was therefore without authority of law and refundable, and certiorari against the departmental rejection was maintainable on that basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Aug 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2014 11:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=66288" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (8) TMI 48 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27290</link>
      <description>A subordinate excise exemption notification issued under delegated legislation becomes operative only on due publication in the Official Gazette, not merely on the date printed on the notification. The Madras HC stated that where a fiscal notification of general application is required to be published, it must be made available to the public before it takes effect. On the facts, the withdrawal notification was placed on sale after its stated date, so the earlier exemption continued until effective publication. Duty collected for the intervening period was therefore without authority of law and refundable, and certiorari against the departmental rejection was maintainable on that basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Aug 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27290</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>