<?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>1976 (7) TMI 100 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94866</link>
    <description>Unflavoured and unblended cocoa powder obtained by pulverising cocoa cake was not classifiable as &quot;cocoa powder&quot; under Item I-A because excisable goods in a taxing statute must be understood in their common parlance or trade meaning unless the statute provides otherwise. The authorities had relied on marketability and dictionary meaning without proving that the unflavoured product was recognised in trade as cocoa powder. Material from traders, users and a food technology expert showed that, in commerce, cocoa powder meant flavoured and blended cocoa powder. The excise demands and consequential orders were therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Jul 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Dec 2011 14:54:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131925" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (7) TMI 100 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94866</link>
      <description>Unflavoured and unblended cocoa powder obtained by pulverising cocoa cake was not classifiable as &quot;cocoa powder&quot; under Item I-A because excisable goods in a taxing statute must be understood in their common parlance or trade meaning unless the statute provides otherwise. The authorities had relied on marketability and dictionary meaning without proving that the unflavoured product was recognised in trade as cocoa powder. Material from traders, users and a food technology expert showed that, in commerce, cocoa powder meant flavoured and blended cocoa powder. The excise demands and consequential orders were therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Jul 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94866</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>