<?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>1981 (1) TMI 82 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41923</link>
    <description>Under taxing notifications, undefined expressions must be read in their plain and natural sense, and later customs definitions cannot control earlier excise exemptions. The Court treated the demand notices denying rebate and partial exemption as unsustainable because they relied on an extraneous customs definition instead of the notification language. It also held that a vessel bound for a foreign port, or an ocean-going vessel on foreign run, remains within those expressions even if it briefly touches Indian ports under permission for cargo discharge and limited coastal activity. The rebate and exemption therefore applied, and the relief granted to the assessee was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Jun 2010 10:11:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80452" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (1) TMI 82 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41923</link>
      <description>Under taxing notifications, undefined expressions must be read in their plain and natural sense, and later customs definitions cannot control earlier excise exemptions. The Court treated the demand notices denying rebate and partial exemption as unsustainable because they relied on an extraneous customs definition instead of the notification language. It also held that a vessel bound for a foreign port, or an ocean-going vessel on foreign run, remains within those expressions even if it briefly touches Indian ports under permission for cargo discharge and limited coastal activity. The rebate and exemption therefore applied, and the relief granted to the assessee was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41923</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>