<?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>1982 (4) TMI 280 - APPELLATE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165735</link>
    <description>Tariff Item 51A(iii) was construed according to its express wording, which covered dies for wire drawing and extrusion dies for metal and rock drilling bits, and not dies generally. On that interpretation, forged dies manufactured by the assessee did not fall within the entry. The central excise duty demand based on Tariff Item 51A(iii) therefore could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Apr 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2014 17:59:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=361737" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (4) TMI 280 - APPELLATE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165735</link>
      <description>Tariff Item 51A(iii) was construed according to its express wording, which covered dies for wire drawing and extrusion dies for metal and rock drilling bits, and not dies generally. On that interpretation, forged dies manufactured by the assessee did not fall within the entry. The central excise duty demand based on Tariff Item 51A(iii) therefore could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Apr 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165735</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>