<?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 (5) TMI 69 - High Court Of Calcutta</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193017</link>
    <description>Excise duty on laminated jute goods requires manufacture of a new and distinct excisable article. Coating or laminating jute cloth with polythene or adhesive material does not alter its essential character into a different jute manufacture. The differential weight between the laminated product and the original jute goods represents lamination materials, which cannot be subjected indirectly to duty as jute manufactures; the demand was therefore invalid. Availability of an alternative statutory remedy does not preclude writ relief where prior appellate and revisional remedies were summarily rejected and requiring their repetition would be futile.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 May 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Jul 2017 13:10:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=480135" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1970 (5) TMI 69 - High Court Of Calcutta</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193017</link>
      <description>Excise duty on laminated jute goods requires manufacture of a new and distinct excisable article. Coating or laminating jute cloth with polythene or adhesive material does not alter its essential character into a different jute manufacture. The differential weight between the laminated product and the original jute goods represents lamination materials, which cannot be subjected indirectly to duty as jute manufactures; the demand was therefore invalid. Availability of an alternative statutory remedy does not preclude writ relief where prior appellate and revisional remedies were summarily rejected and requiring their repetition would be futile.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 May 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193017</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>