<?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 (1) TMI 91 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297247</link>
    <description>Medicinal preparations containing spirits, tinctures or chloroform were treated as containing alcohol for the excise levy, because alcohol remains present when introduced through alcoholic solutions rather than in free form. The classification under item 1 of the Schedule was upheld as having a rational basis, and the levy was not treated as discriminatory or as double taxation. The demand was also held not to be barred by limitation, as the case fell within the residuary collection power rather than the short-levy rule. On the Rule 60(3) presumption, the Court required factual reconsideration by the authorities and quashed demand orders where that opportunity had not been given.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Aug 2021 17:30:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=653827" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (1) TMI 91 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297247</link>
      <description>Medicinal preparations containing spirits, tinctures or chloroform were treated as containing alcohol for the excise levy, because alcohol remains present when introduced through alcoholic solutions rather than in free form. The classification under item 1 of the Schedule was upheld as having a rational basis, and the levy was not treated as discriminatory or as double taxation. The demand was also held not to be barred by limitation, as the case fell within the residuary collection power rather than the short-levy rule. On the Rule 60(3) presumption, the Court required factual reconsideration by the authorities and quashed demand orders where that opportunity had not been given.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297247</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>