<?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>1970 (8) TMI 82 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167346</link>
    <description>Statutory alternative remedy was treated as a matter of discretion, not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction, and was declined where the classification issue involved recurring liability and the departmental order was unreasoned. For tariff classification, polymer chips used for Nylon 6 yarn were assessed in their commercial and popular sense, not by technical description, and were found not to be known in trade as plastics of all sorts. Excise duty was held to arise on manufacture, and movement of chips within the composite factory for further processing was treated as removal for the scheme of the Act and Rules. The writ succeeded because the goods were outside the relevant tariff entry.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2014 11:33:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=371352" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1970 (8) TMI 82 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167346</link>
      <description>Statutory alternative remedy was treated as a matter of discretion, not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction, and was declined where the classification issue involved recurring liability and the departmental order was unreasoned. For tariff classification, polymer chips used for Nylon 6 yarn were assessed in their commercial and popular sense, not by technical description, and were found not to be known in trade as plastics of all sorts. Excise duty was held to arise on manufacture, and movement of chips within the composite factory for further processing was treated as removal for the scheme of the Act and Rules. The writ succeeded because the goods were outside the relevant tariff entry.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167346</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>