<?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>1967 (9) TMI 153 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275867</link>
    <description>Article 131 applies only where the Union and a State are the disputants in the constitutional sense; a revisional authority acting under taxing legislation is a tribunal, so the High Court&#039;s jurisdiction under Article 226 was not excluded. Item 26-AA of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 covered only the specified iron or steel products and technical shapes or sections named in the tariff entry; agricultural implements such as shovels, ploughs, pickaxes and sledge hammers were not within that description. On that basis, agricultural implements made from iron and steel products were not liable to excise duty under the item, and the demand was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Sep 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Oct 2018 14:57:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=538929" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (9) TMI 153 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275867</link>
      <description>Article 131 applies only where the Union and a State are the disputants in the constitutional sense; a revisional authority acting under taxing legislation is a tribunal, so the High Court&#039;s jurisdiction under Article 226 was not excluded. Item 26-AA of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 covered only the specified iron or steel products and technical shapes or sections named in the tariff entry; agricultural implements such as shovels, ploughs, pickaxes and sledge hammers were not within that description. On that basis, agricultural implements made from iron and steel products were not liable to excise duty under the item, and the demand was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Sep 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275867</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>