<?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>2005 (11) TMI 74 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47459</link>
    <description>Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2000 retrospectively withdrew Modvat credit for manufacturers using high speed diesel oil to generate electricity and validated earlier denials despite contrary rules, notifications, judgments, decrees or orders. Its validity depended on Parliament&#039;s legislative competence and whether it removed the basis of the prior credit entitlement. The provision applied uniformly to the defined class of manufacturers using high speed diesel oil for electricity generation; this classification was treated as reasonable rather than discriminatory. The retrospective withdrawal of the fiscal concession therefore did not violate Article 14, and the validating provision remained constitutionally valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 18:45:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85978" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (11) TMI 74 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47459</link>
      <description>Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2000 retrospectively withdrew Modvat credit for manufacturers using high speed diesel oil to generate electricity and validated earlier denials despite contrary rules, notifications, judgments, decrees or orders. Its validity depended on Parliament&#039;s legislative competence and whether it removed the basis of the prior credit entitlement. The provision applied uniformly to the defined class of manufacturers using high speed diesel oil for electricity generation; this classification was treated as reasonable rather than discriminatory. The retrospective withdrawal of the fiscal concession therefore did not violate Article 14, and the validating provision remained constitutionally valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47459</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>