<?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>1997 (9) TMI 200 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87272</link>
    <description>Separately situated factory sheds on different plots, with separate premises and precincts, were treated as distinct factories for excise purposes under Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948. The tariff provision applied only to goods manufactured in a factory, while the exemption covered goods made in premises other than a factory. On that reasoning, workers could not be clubbed across independent sheds to fasten duty liability, and registration as a small scale industrial unit did not change the statutory test. The analysis states that, on these facts, the goods were not liable to excise duty and the demand and penalty were unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 18:11:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124339" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (9) TMI 200 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87272</link>
      <description>Separately situated factory sheds on different plots, with separate premises and precincts, were treated as distinct factories for excise purposes under Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948. The tariff provision applied only to goods manufactured in a factory, while the exemption covered goods made in premises other than a factory. On that reasoning, workers could not be clubbed across independent sheds to fasten duty liability, and registration as a small scale industrial unit did not change the statutory test. The analysis states that, on these facts, the goods were not liable to excise duty and the demand and penalty were unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87272</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>