<?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>1972 (2) TMI 89 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165554</link>
    <description>Aluminium cans or torch bodies made from aluminium slugs were treated as excisable goods because the manufacturing process involved extrusion in its broad commercial sense, including impact extrusion, and the articles were also capable of falling within pipes and tubes. The text states that conversion of aluminium slugs into distinct hollow cans amounted to manufacture, and that a special or general open market was not required where the product was recognisable in trade and answered the statutory description of goods. On that basis, the tariff entry and charging provision supported the levy, and the excise duty challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2014 11:21:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=361033" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1972 (2) TMI 89 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165554</link>
      <description>Aluminium cans or torch bodies made from aluminium slugs were treated as excisable goods because the manufacturing process involved extrusion in its broad commercial sense, including impact extrusion, and the articles were also capable of falling within pipes and tubes. The text states that conversion of aluminium slugs into distinct hollow cans amounted to manufacture, and that a special or general open market was not required where the product was recognisable in trade and answered the statutory description of goods. On that basis, the tariff entry and charging provision supported the levy, and the excise duty challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165554</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>