<?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 (2) TMI 64 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41804</link>
    <description>Complex fertilizers were held outside Notification No. 25/70-C.X because the exemption covered only mixed fertilizers manufactured with power from two or more duty-paid fertilizers, not products involving additional ingredients and chemical reactions. The Central Government&#039;s revisional order was treated as conditional, not as an absolute grant of exemption, and the respondent therefore remained ineligible for relief. As the exemption was not legally available, the claimed refund of excise duty also failed, and repayment was further resisted on the ground of unjust enrichment. The departmental refusal of exemption and refund was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Feb 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Jun 2010 11:49:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80333" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (2) TMI 64 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41804</link>
      <description>Complex fertilizers were held outside Notification No. 25/70-C.X because the exemption covered only mixed fertilizers manufactured with power from two or more duty-paid fertilizers, not products involving additional ingredients and chemical reactions. The Central Government&#039;s revisional order was treated as conditional, not as an absolute grant of exemption, and the respondent therefore remained ineligible for relief. As the exemption was not legally available, the claimed refund of excise duty also failed, and repayment was further resisted on the ground of unjust enrichment. The departmental refusal of exemption and refund was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Feb 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41804</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>