<?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>1994 (10) TMI 69 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43925</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the appeals, holding that the exemption notifications did not cover additional duty (countervailing duty) under Section 3(2)(ii) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. It was concluded that the levy of countervailing duty on imported PVC Resins was valid. The court emphasized the requirement for specific mention of additional duty in exemption notifications for such exemptions to be applicable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Oct 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:57:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82454" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (10) TMI 69 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43925</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the appeals, holding that the exemption notifications did not cover additional duty (countervailing duty) under Section 3(2)(ii) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. It was concluded that the levy of countervailing duty on imported PVC Resins was valid. The court emphasized the requirement for specific mention of additional duty in exemption notifications for such exemptions to be applicable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Oct 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43925</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>