<?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>1996 (2) TMI 144 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44258</link>
    <description>A later customs notification restricting an earlier exemption was applied to imported PVC resin, with the transaction entered into only after the restrictive change. The analysis notes that the earlier exemption notification of 15 March 1979 was modified on 16 October 1980 to confine the benefit to duty above 40% ad valorem. It further states that promissory estoppel could not be invoked to preserve full exemption against the amended fiscal notification, and that the importer&#039;s position was weaker because the letters of credit and import were made after the later notification. The claim to full exemption was therefore rejected and the Revenue&#039;s position was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Jun 2010 10:59:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82787" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (2) TMI 144 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44258</link>
      <description>A later customs notification restricting an earlier exemption was applied to imported PVC resin, with the transaction entered into only after the restrictive change. The analysis notes that the earlier exemption notification of 15 March 1979 was modified on 16 October 1980 to confine the benefit to duty above 40% ad valorem. It further states that promissory estoppel could not be invoked to preserve full exemption against the amended fiscal notification, and that the importer&#039;s position was weaker because the letters of credit and import were made after the later notification. The claim to full exemption was therefore rejected and the Revenue&#039;s position was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44258</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>