<?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 (9) TMI 90 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44022</link>
    <description>Customs duty was held to be chargeable at the enhanced rate where the notification increasing duty had already been published in the Gazette and made available for sale before the bills of entry were filed. The relevant date for determining liability was the filing of the bills of entry, not the importers&#039; lack of personal knowledge of the notification. The Court also followed an earlier Division Bench view on the same question, confirming that the enhanced duty notification governed the imports.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Jun 2010 15:55:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82551" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (9) TMI 90 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44022</link>
      <description>Customs duty was held to be chargeable at the enhanced rate where the notification increasing duty had already been published in the Gazette and made available for sale before the bills of entry were filed. The relevant date for determining liability was the filing of the bills of entry, not the importers&#039; lack of personal knowledge of the notification. The Court also followed an earlier Division Bench view on the same question, confirming that the enhanced duty notification governed the imports.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44022</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>