<?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 (11) TMI 72 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44085</link>
    <description>The Project Imports Regulations, 1986 were upheld as valid, and the definition of &quot;industrial plant&quot; could lawfully exclude service establishments such as photographic studios from project import benefit. The binding Supreme Court decision governed the issue, so no fresh reconsideration of the validity challenge was required. The exclusion of photographic studios from the benefit was therefore sustained against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Nov 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Jun 2010 09:48:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82614" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (11) TMI 72 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44085</link>
      <description>The Project Imports Regulations, 1986 were upheld as valid, and the definition of &quot;industrial plant&quot; could lawfully exclude service establishments such as photographic studios from project import benefit. The binding Supreme Court decision governed the issue, so no fresh reconsideration of the validity challenge was required. The exclusion of photographic studios from the benefit was therefore sustained against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Nov 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44085</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>