<?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 (5) TMI 99 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165761</link>
    <description>Rules 8 and 9 of the Punjab Bonded Warehouse Rules, 1957 were treated as regulatory measures within the rule-making power under the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 because they governed storage and movement of liquor in bonded warehouses and sought to prevent loss, fraud, and evasion rather than impose a fresh excise levy. On shortages in liquor transported under bond, the statutory scheme under Section 31 and Entry 51 of List II was read as permitting duty on excisable articles transported under bond, including unexplained shortages beyond permissible wastage. The levy was therefore confined to accounted shortfall in liquor actually manufactured and dispatched, and was upheld as legally enforceable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 May 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2014 18:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=361874" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (5) TMI 99 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165761</link>
      <description>Rules 8 and 9 of the Punjab Bonded Warehouse Rules, 1957 were treated as regulatory measures within the rule-making power under the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 because they governed storage and movement of liquor in bonded warehouses and sought to prevent loss, fraud, and evasion rather than impose a fresh excise levy. On shortages in liquor transported under bond, the statutory scheme under Section 31 and Entry 51 of List II was read as permitting duty on excisable articles transported under bond, including unexplained shortages beyond permissible wastage. The levy was therefore confined to accounted shortfall in liquor actually manufactured and dispatched, and was upheld as legally enforceable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 May 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165761</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>