<?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>2011 (7) TMI 1122 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172981</link>
    <description>The amended overtime fee for excise staff stationed at distilleries was upheld as supported by statutory rule-making power under the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 and the distillery rules. Section 41 was treated as authorising the Excise Commissioner to prescribe fees and the manner of fixing them for licences, permits, passes and connected privileges, including charges linked to work beyond normal hours. The levy applied only where the distiller sought extra working hours, and it was not shown to be manifestly unjust, oppressive, or unrelated to the service rendered. The presumption of validity therefore remained unrebutted, and the enhancement was held to be intra vires.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Sep 2015 11:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=395915" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (7) TMI 1122 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172981</link>
      <description>The amended overtime fee for excise staff stationed at distilleries was upheld as supported by statutory rule-making power under the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 and the distillery rules. Section 41 was treated as authorising the Excise Commissioner to prescribe fees and the manner of fixing them for licences, permits, passes and connected privileges, including charges linked to work beyond normal hours. The levy applied only where the distiller sought extra working hours, and it was not shown to be manifestly unjust, oppressive, or unrelated to the service rendered. The presumption of validity therefore remained unrebutted, and the enhancement was held to be intra vires.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172981</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>