<?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>1987 (8) TMI 120 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43617</link>
    <description>Promissory estoppel was discussed as a response to supersession of a statutory exemption notification granting duty relief for a stated period. The note records that the High Court had already decided the issue in favour of the appellants in an earlier decision, and that no affidavit had been filed to raise the separate equity-based objection that estoppel should be denied. On that basis, the appellants were treated as entitled to duty at the rate in the 15 March 1979 notification, with excess duty refundable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Aug 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Jun 2010 10:50:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82146" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (8) TMI 120 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43617</link>
      <description>Promissory estoppel was discussed as a response to supersession of a statutory exemption notification granting duty relief for a stated period. The note records that the High Court had already decided the issue in favour of the appellants in an earlier decision, and that no affidavit had been filed to raise the separate equity-based objection that estoppel should be denied. On that basis, the appellants were treated as entitled to duty at the rate in the 15 March 1979 notification, with excess duty refundable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Aug 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43617</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>