<?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>1992 (7) TMI 76 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43415</link>
    <description>Customs duty liability is governed by the statutory date under Section 15 of the Customs Act, so goods cleared after the revised notification date attracted the higher rate and not the earlier concession. Promissory estoppel does not bar the State from changing a fiscal policy or duty notification, because no estoppel can operate against a statute and a concessionary regime creates no enforceable right to its continuance. The Project Import Regulations, 1986 and the impugned notification were also treated as within the delegated powers under the Customs Act and Customs Tariff Act, and the excessive delegation challenge failed. The enhanced duty and regulatory framework were therefore sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Jun 2010 09:47:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81944" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (7) TMI 76 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43415</link>
      <description>Customs duty liability is governed by the statutory date under Section 15 of the Customs Act, so goods cleared after the revised notification date attracted the higher rate and not the earlier concession. Promissory estoppel does not bar the State from changing a fiscal policy or duty notification, because no estoppel can operate against a statute and a concessionary regime creates no enforceable right to its continuance. The Project Import Regulations, 1986 and the impugned notification were also treated as within the delegated powers under the Customs Act and Customs Tariff Act, and the excessive delegation challenge failed. The enhanced duty and regulatory framework were therefore sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43415</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>