<?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>1996 (1) TMI 453 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188325</link>
    <description>The U.P. Excise Act, 1910 permitted bottling of foreign liquor only under licence, and the statutory scheme also authorized prescription of licence fees. Section 17(d) barred bottling for sale without a licence under Section 18, Section 24 covered licences for manufacturing and sale, Section 28(d) recognised excise or countervailing duty on excisable articles, and Section 41(c) empowered the Excise Commissioner to fix the scale or manner of fees for licences, permits or passes. Bottling was treated as a distinct licensable activity, so the fact that it occurred alongside manufacture, or that excise duty was already payable, did not exclude a separate bottling licence fee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2018 13:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=449241" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (1) TMI 453 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188325</link>
      <description>The U.P. Excise Act, 1910 permitted bottling of foreign liquor only under licence, and the statutory scheme also authorized prescription of licence fees. Section 17(d) barred bottling for sale without a licence under Section 18, Section 24 covered licences for manufacturing and sale, Section 28(d) recognised excise or countervailing duty on excisable articles, and Section 41(c) empowered the Excise Commissioner to fix the scale or manner of fees for licences, permits or passes. Bottling was treated as a distinct licensable activity, so the fact that it occurred alongside manufacture, or that excise duty was already payable, did not exclude a separate bottling licence fee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188325</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>