<?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>1985 (10) TMI 176 - KARNATAKA  HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72084</link>
    <description>Carbon paper was treated as stationery under the residuary Item 68 rather than as coated paper under Item 17(2) for the relevant periods. Although Item 17(2) was amended to include coated paper, tariff advice and trade notices classified carbon paper as stationery, and no clear clarification brought it within the coated-paper description before its separate inclusion in 1982. Legislative material, including the objects and reasons for an amendment, may assist in determining its effect in a taxing statute. The subsequent specific entry supported the position that carbon paper had not previously fallen under Item 17(2), making differential excise duty unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Oct 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 May 2011 16:11:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=110364" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (10) TMI 176 - KARNATAKA  HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72084</link>
      <description>Carbon paper was treated as stationery under the residuary Item 68 rather than as coated paper under Item 17(2) for the relevant periods. Although Item 17(2) was amended to include coated paper, tariff advice and trade notices classified carbon paper as stationery, and no clear clarification brought it within the coated-paper description before its separate inclusion in 1982. Legislative material, including the objects and reasons for an amendment, may assist in determining its effect in a taxing statute. The subsequent specific entry supported the position that carbon paper had not previously fallen under Item 17(2), making differential excise duty unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Oct 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72084</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>