<?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>1977 (6) TMI 29 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40525</link>
    <description>Rule 223A of the Central Excise Rules permits special stock taking when the Collector or competent officer considers it necessary or proper, and the direction need not be in writing; an oral order by the proper authority is legally sufficient. The challenge to the special stock taking was therefore rejected. On tobacco shortage, the permissible extent of driage depends on the nature and quality of the tobacco, storage conditions, season, and other facts. As no material was produced to show that the entire shortage was due to natural causes, acceptance of only 5 per cent driage was not interfered with, and the demand and penalty were sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jun 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 May 2010 11:42:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79056" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (6) TMI 29 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40525</link>
      <description>Rule 223A of the Central Excise Rules permits special stock taking when the Collector or competent officer considers it necessary or proper, and the direction need not be in writing; an oral order by the proper authority is legally sufficient. The challenge to the special stock taking was therefore rejected. On tobacco shortage, the permissible extent of driage depends on the nature and quality of the tobacco, storage conditions, season, and other facts. As no material was produced to show that the entire shortage was due to natural causes, acceptance of only 5 per cent driage was not interfered with, and the demand and penalty were sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jun 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40525</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>