<?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>1977 (5) TMI 87 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301931</link>
    <description>Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) arose where the refund was payable to the petitioner&#039;s registered office and the challenged customs communications were served; an alternative assessment location did not displace that jurisdiction. An undefined fiscal tariff entry must be interpreted in its popular or commercial sense. Plant and equipment used in integrated ore crushing, screening, washing, conveying, stocking and preparation for sale formed part of mining operations and qualified as mining machinery under the concessional tariff entry. Classification under the residuary entry was unreasonable. Excess duty paid under mistake was refundable, and estoppel did not bar restitution. The adverse demand and appellate or revisional orders were quashed, with reassessment and refund directed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 May 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2022 12:39:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=677293" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (5) TMI 87 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301931</link>
      <description>Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) arose where the refund was payable to the petitioner&#039;s registered office and the challenged customs communications were served; an alternative assessment location did not displace that jurisdiction. An undefined fiscal tariff entry must be interpreted in its popular or commercial sense. Plant and equipment used in integrated ore crushing, screening, washing, conveying, stocking and preparation for sale formed part of mining operations and qualified as mining machinery under the concessional tariff entry. Classification under the residuary entry was unreasonable. Excess duty paid under mistake was refundable, and estoppel did not bar restitution. The adverse demand and appellate or revisional orders were quashed, with reassessment and refund directed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 May 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301931</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>