<?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>1993 (6) TMI 67 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43576</link>
    <description>An excise exemption notification intended to promote indigenous pharmaceutical manufacture was read as unavailable only where foreign interest in the manufacturer was real and material. Minor shareholding through the custodian of enemy property and by a deceased foreign national, together with an earlier foreign collaboration that had ended, was treated as too insignificant to defeat the benefit. Denial of exemption on such technical grounds was therefore inconsistent with the notification&#039;s object, and the company&#039;s entitlement to the exemption and related refund verification was affirmed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Jun 2010 18:20:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82105" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (6) TMI 67 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43576</link>
      <description>An excise exemption notification intended to promote indigenous pharmaceutical manufacture was read as unavailable only where foreign interest in the manufacturer was real and material. Minor shareholding through the custodian of enemy property and by a deceased foreign national, together with an earlier foreign collaboration that had ended, was treated as too insignificant to defeat the benefit. Denial of exemption on such technical grounds was therefore inconsistent with the notification&#039;s object, and the company&#039;s entitlement to the exemption and related refund verification was affirmed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43576</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>