<?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 (10) TMI 27 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40589</link>
    <description>A concessional excise duty notification must be construed on its plain terms with reference to the assessee&#039;s own manufacturing process, not the processes by which inputs or intermediate goods were made by others. On that reading, use of soap stock did not deprive the petitioners of the reduced rate for soap manufactured without the aid of power or steam, and the lower duty benefit remained available. Separately, statutory rejection orders could not stand because they gave no reasons; an unreasoned appellate refusal is contrary to the rule of law. The impugned orders were therefore liable to be quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 May 2010 15:47:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79120" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (10) TMI 27 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40589</link>
      <description>A concessional excise duty notification must be construed on its plain terms with reference to the assessee&#039;s own manufacturing process, not the processes by which inputs or intermediate goods were made by others. On that reading, use of soap stock did not deprive the petitioners of the reduced rate for soap manufactured without the aid of power or steam, and the lower duty benefit remained available. Separately, statutory rejection orders could not stand because they gave no reasons; an unreasoned appellate refusal is contrary to the rule of law. The impugned orders were therefore liable to be quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40589</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>