<?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>1985 (1) TMI 327 - CEGAT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167403</link>
    <description>Machinery provisions under a fiscal import and return procedure were construed liberally to advance the remedy and avoid an absurd or unworkable result. The expression &quot;on receipt&quot; was read as permitting defective goods to be returned to the original manufacturer even when the defect was discovered shortly after delivery at the assembly-line stage, provided the goods had not been put into use and the prescribed notice was given to the excise authorities. A rigid requirement of instantaneous inspection on delivery was rejected because it would defeat the object of the rule. The return of the defective goods was treated as permissible and the demand was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2014 17:09:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=371460" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (1) TMI 327 - CEGAT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167403</link>
      <description>Machinery provisions under a fiscal import and return procedure were construed liberally to advance the remedy and avoid an absurd or unworkable result. The expression &quot;on receipt&quot; was read as permitting defective goods to be returned to the original manufacturer even when the defect was discovered shortly after delivery at the assembly-line stage, provided the goods had not been put into use and the prescribed notice was given to the excise authorities. A rigid requirement of instantaneous inspection on delivery was rejected because it would defeat the object of the rule. The return of the defective goods was treated as permissible and the demand was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167403</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>