<?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>1975 (9) TMI 54 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40539</link>
    <description>Insulated aluminium cables with a sectional area of 2.545 sq. mm. were treated as exceeding the 2.5 sq. mm. limit in Item 33B of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. In construing the tariff entry, the court held that the statutory line of demarcation had to be applied as written and that no rounding off was warranted for fiscal classification. The fractional excess therefore could not be ignored, and the cable fell within the lower tariff entry, attracting duty at 5% rather than 15%.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Sep 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 May 2010 13:14:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79070" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (9) TMI 54 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40539</link>
      <description>Insulated aluminium cables with a sectional area of 2.545 sq. mm. were treated as exceeding the 2.5 sq. mm. limit in Item 33B of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. In construing the tariff entry, the court held that the statutory line of demarcation had to be applied as written and that no rounding off was warranted for fiscal classification. The fractional excess therefore could not be ignored, and the cable fell within the lower tariff entry, attracting duty at 5% rather than 15%.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Sep 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40539</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>