<?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 80 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42832</link>
    <description>Separate central excise exemption under Notifications No. 198/76-C.E. and 216/76-C.E. could be claimed for grease proof paper and glassine paper once the earlier exemption under Notification No. 42/73-C.E. ceased and the replacement Notification No. 129/77-C.E. did not cover those goods, provided the prescribed clearance condition was satisfied. On the stated facts, that condition was met from 30.09.1977, so the concessional rate applied and the refund already granted was not shown to be inadmissible. Show cause notices based on a trade notice were unsustainable because a trade notice cannot control quasi-judicial decision-making, and notices founded on the erroneous premise that the later exemption was unavailable were without jurisdiction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Jun 2010 15:44:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81361" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (9) TMI 80 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42832</link>
      <description>Separate central excise exemption under Notifications No. 198/76-C.E. and 216/76-C.E. could be claimed for grease proof paper and glassine paper once the earlier exemption under Notification No. 42/73-C.E. ceased and the replacement Notification No. 129/77-C.E. did not cover those goods, provided the prescribed clearance condition was satisfied. On the stated facts, that condition was met from 30.09.1977, so the concessional rate applied and the refund already granted was not shown to be inadmissible. Show cause notices based on a trade notice were unsustainable because a trade notice cannot control quasi-judicial decision-making, and notices founded on the erroneous premise that the later exemption was unavailable were without jurisdiction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42832</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>