<?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 245 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87406</link>
    <description>Duty on molasses remitted under the second proviso to Rule 49(1) for becoming unfit for consumption or marketing due to natural causes was questioned for revival merely because the molasses was later sold as fertiliser. The Tribunal did not decide the substantive tax issue; it framed the question for reference to the High Court and directed the Registry to draw up the statement of the case, leaving the legal issue to be determined by the higher court.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Sep 2011 17:22:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124473" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (9) TMI 245 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87406</link>
      <description>Duty on molasses remitted under the second proviso to Rule 49(1) for becoming unfit for consumption or marketing due to natural causes was questioned for revival merely because the molasses was later sold as fertiliser. The Tribunal did not decide the substantive tax issue; it framed the question for reference to the High Court and directed the Registry to draw up the statement of the case, leaving the legal issue to be determined by the higher court.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87406</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>