<?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>1979 (11) TMI 116 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41431</link>
    <description>The court upheld the Central Government&#039;s exemption of customs duty on vegetable oils imported by the State Trading Corporation (STC) at 5% ad valorem, while maintaining a 12.5% duty for other importers. It found the differential treatment justified under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962, to control domestic prices of vanaspathi. The court dismissed claims of discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution, ruling that the petitioners and STC were not similarly situated due to timing and pricing differences. Petitioners were directed to pay the balance of customs duty at 7.5% with interest, and costs were to be borne by the parties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Jun 2010 11:49:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79962" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1979 (11) TMI 116 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41431</link>
      <description>The court upheld the Central Government&#039;s exemption of customs duty on vegetable oils imported by the State Trading Corporation (STC) at 5% ad valorem, while maintaining a 12.5% duty for other importers. It found the differential treatment justified under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962, to control domestic prices of vanaspathi. The court dismissed claims of discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution, ruling that the petitioners and STC were not similarly situated due to timing and pricing differences. Petitioners were directed to pay the balance of customs duty at 7.5% with interest, and costs were to be borne by the parties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41431</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>