<?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>1974 (12) TMI 39 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40626</link>
    <description>Domestic grinding mills or flour mills manufactured without an inbuilt electric motor were treated as outside Item 33C of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. Item 33C and the exemption notification under Rule 8 were read together as an integrated scheme, covering complete domestic electrical appliances with the electrical element built into the unit. The departmental trade notice confirmed that appliances lacking an inbuilt electrical device were not intended to bear the levy. Because the petitioners manufactured only the mechanical unit, which became an electric appliance only after a separate motor was fitted, the goods as manufactured were not complete appliances within Item 33C. The excise demand was therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 May 2010 11:43:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79157" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1974 (12) TMI 39 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40626</link>
      <description>Domestic grinding mills or flour mills manufactured without an inbuilt electric motor were treated as outside Item 33C of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. Item 33C and the exemption notification under Rule 8 were read together as an integrated scheme, covering complete domestic electrical appliances with the electrical element built into the unit. The departmental trade notice confirmed that appliances lacking an inbuilt electrical device were not intended to bear the levy. Because the petitioners manufactured only the mechanical unit, which became an electric appliance only after a separate motor was fitted, the goods as manufactured were not complete appliances within Item 33C. The excise demand was therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40626</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>