<?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>1989 (9) TMI 112 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42626</link>
    <description>The court dismissed both petitions challenging the interpretation of a customs duty Notification on Zinc imports. It held that the 45% duty exemption applied only to basic customs duty, not auxiliary or additional duties. The petitioners sought a refund for excess basic customs duty paid, contingent on Department assessment. The court declined to issue directions, awaiting Department evaluation. The rule in both petitions was discharged with no costs, citing precedent and legal principles for the decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Jun 2010 13:02:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81155" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (9) TMI 112 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42626</link>
      <description>The court dismissed both petitions challenging the interpretation of a customs duty Notification on Zinc imports. It held that the 45% duty exemption applied only to basic customs duty, not auxiliary or additional duties. The petitioners sought a refund for excess basic customs duty paid, contingent on Department assessment. The court declined to issue directions, awaiting Department evaluation. The rule in both petitions was discharged with no costs, citing precedent and legal principles for the decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42626</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>