<?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>1986 (7) TMI 102 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41734</link>
    <description>The court held that the exemption notifications under the Customs Act did not apply to additional duty or countervailing duty, rejecting the petitioners&#039; argument on this issue. It acknowledged certain notifications under the Central Excise Act limiting the respondents from collecting excise duty above specified rates, ordering a refund of the excess amount collected on High Density Polythelene Moulding Powder (HDPE). The court ruled partially in favor of the petitioners, directing the respondents to refund the excess excise duty collected within a specified timeframe and discharged the bank guarantee provided by the petitioners.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Jun 2010 16:59:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80263" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (7) TMI 102 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41734</link>
      <description>The court held that the exemption notifications under the Customs Act did not apply to additional duty or countervailing duty, rejecting the petitioners&#039; argument on this issue. It acknowledged certain notifications under the Central Excise Act limiting the respondents from collecting excise duty above specified rates, ordering a refund of the excess amount collected on High Density Polythelene Moulding Powder (HDPE). The court ruled partially in favor of the petitioners, directing the respondents to refund the excess excise duty collected within a specified timeframe and discharged the bank guarantee provided by the petitioners.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41734</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>