<?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>2006 (9) TMI 184 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47761</link>
    <description>The High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the conversion from DEPB to DFRC scheme, upholding the tribunal&#039;s decision. The court emphasized fair treatment and equal benefits, noting the respondents met conditions and were treated similarly. The argument on prospective revocation was rejected, as the decision focused on eligibility and equal treatment. The court found no grounds to challenge the tribunal&#039;s interpretation of &#039;dispute&#039; in the Circular, vacating the interim order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 16:52:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=86279" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (9) TMI 184 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47761</link>
      <description>The High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the conversion from DEPB to DFRC scheme, upholding the tribunal&#039;s decision. The court emphasized fair treatment and equal benefits, noting the respondents met conditions and were treated similarly. The argument on prospective revocation was rejected, as the decision focused on eligibility and equal treatment. The court found no grounds to challenge the tribunal&#039;s interpretation of &#039;dispute&#039; in the Circular, vacating the interim order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47761</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>