<?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>1990 (1) TMI 85 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42790</link>
    <description>A credit scheme under Rule 57K of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 allowed credit for use of non-traditional oils in Vanaspati manufacture on compliance with scheme conditions. The petitioners changed position by using the notified inputs and earning credit before rescission of the exemption notification. The court noted that the rescinding notification was issued and withdrawn without any material showing change of circumstances, public interest, or other objective basis to deprive them of accrued credit. In that setting, the State was required to act fairly and could not arbitrarily extinguish a benefit already earned under the scheme.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:51:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81319" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (1) TMI 85 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42790</link>
      <description>A credit scheme under Rule 57K of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 allowed credit for use of non-traditional oils in Vanaspati manufacture on compliance with scheme conditions. The petitioners changed position by using the notified inputs and earning credit before rescission of the exemption notification. The court noted that the rescinding notification was issued and withdrawn without any material showing change of circumstances, public interest, or other objective basis to deprive them of accrued credit. In that setting, the State was required to act fairly and could not arbitrarily extinguish a benefit already earned under the scheme.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42790</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>