<?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 (11) TMI 46 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42683</link>
    <description>Fiscal exemption notifications require strict compliance, and the taxpayer must satisfy every stated condition to claim the benefit. For imported orthoxylene, exemption under Notification No. 276/67 was unavailable because the goods did not meet all the prescribed conditions, including the specified use requirement. Notification No. 89/82 was also inapplicable because, read with its explanatory memorandum, it was intended to address a different excise-duty structure linked to free trade zone manufacture and could not extend an indirect benefit where the main exemption failed. The additional duty challenge therefore failed on both grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Nov 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Jun 2010 16:24:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81212" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (11) TMI 46 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42683</link>
      <description>Fiscal exemption notifications require strict compliance, and the taxpayer must satisfy every stated condition to claim the benefit. For imported orthoxylene, exemption under Notification No. 276/67 was unavailable because the goods did not meet all the prescribed conditions, including the specified use requirement. Notification No. 89/82 was also inapplicable because, read with its explanatory memorandum, it was intended to address a different excise-duty structure linked to free trade zone manufacture and could not extend an indirect benefit where the main exemption failed. The additional duty challenge therefore failed on both grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Nov 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42683</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>