<?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>2003 (9) TMI 94 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46730</link>
    <description>Exemption from import duty under Notification No. 64/88-Customs was held to be subject only to conditions validly prescribed by the Government. The Court stated that it was for the Government, not judicial directions, to impose requirements for availing the exemption, and that a monthly newspaper advertisement of the number and particulars of indigent patients treated free of cost was unnecessary because publication alone would not prove compliance and further verification would still be needed. The exemption scheme was intended to benefit indigent patients, so additional burdens not imposed by the Government should not be judicially added. The earlier directions in paragraph 14 were overruled and the advertisement condition was not sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2020 12:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85250" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (9) TMI 94 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46730</link>
      <description>Exemption from import duty under Notification No. 64/88-Customs was held to be subject only to conditions validly prescribed by the Government. The Court stated that it was for the Government, not judicial directions, to impose requirements for availing the exemption, and that a monthly newspaper advertisement of the number and particulars of indigent patients treated free of cost was unnecessary because publication alone would not prove compliance and further verification would still be needed. The exemption scheme was intended to benefit indigent patients, so additional burdens not imposed by the Government should not be judicially added. The earlier directions in paragraph 14 were overruled and the advertisement condition was not sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46730</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>