<?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>1994 (10) TMI 299 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174095</link>
    <description>The Rajasthan Excise Amendment Act, 1985 validly extended State excise regulation to molasses because it operated in a field available to the State and did not conflict with the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 or the Molasses Control Order, 1961. Although molasses was linked to the sugar industry, the State provisions dealt with import, export, transport and possession, while the Central order governed sale, removal, storage, grading and pricing. As the two regimes occupied different spheres and no real inconsistency arose, the challenge to legislative competence failed and the State amendment was upheld under the constitutional distribution of legislative power.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2015 10:12:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=399348" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (10) TMI 299 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174095</link>
      <description>The Rajasthan Excise Amendment Act, 1985 validly extended State excise regulation to molasses because it operated in a field available to the State and did not conflict with the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 or the Molasses Control Order, 1961. Although molasses was linked to the sugar industry, the State provisions dealt with import, export, transport and possession, while the Central order governed sale, removal, storage, grading and pricing. As the two regimes occupied different spheres and no real inconsistency arose, the challenge to legislative competence failed and the State amendment was upheld under the constitutional distribution of legislative power.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174095</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>