<?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>2021 (6) TMI 370 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408474</link>
    <description>The court rejected the writ petition due to unreasonable delay in filing and classified the concrete mix as Ready Mix Concrete (RMC), making it subject to excise duty. It held that the Order-in-original was within jurisdiction, emphasizing the distinction between Controlled Mix (CM) and RMC based on manufacturing processes and equipment setup. The court found that the petitioners&#039; manufacturing process aligned with RMC standards, leading to the dismissal of the petition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Jun 2021 10:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=646551" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (6) TMI 370 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408474</link>
      <description>The court rejected the writ petition due to unreasonable delay in filing and classified the concrete mix as Ready Mix Concrete (RMC), making it subject to excise duty. It held that the Order-in-original was within jurisdiction, emphasizing the distinction between Controlled Mix (CM) and RMC based on manufacturing processes and equipment setup. The court found that the petitioners&#039; manufacturing process aligned with RMC standards, leading to the dismissal of the petition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408474</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>