<?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 (9) TMI 77 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42828</link>
    <description>Orders rejecting refund applications and directing recovery of duty already refunded could not stand because they were passed without the benefit of the binding Full Bench ruling that had resolved the main controversy. The Bombay High Court set aside the impugned refund-rejection and recovery orders and remitted the matter to the Collector for fresh determination in accordance with the Full Bench decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Jun 2010 15:35:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81357" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (9) TMI 77 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42828</link>
      <description>Orders rejecting refund applications and directing recovery of duty already refunded could not stand because they were passed without the benefit of the binding Full Bench ruling that had resolved the main controversy. The Bombay High Court set aside the impugned refund-rejection and recovery orders and remitted the matter to the Collector for fresh determination in accordance with the Full Bench decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42828</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>