<?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>1978 (11) TMI 73 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40703</link>
    <description>Zinc rough rolled flat forms used in dry cell battery manufacture were treated as zinc sheets or strips under Item 26-B(2) because trade understanding in the battery industry brought the product within the tariff description. Internal consumption within the factory for making another excisable product did not prevent excise duty from attaching, as the statutory levy applied even without removal from the premises. On limitation, departmental proceedings for assessment and recovery were held not to be &quot;other legal proceedings&quot; under Section 40(2), and the demand was treated as falling under the residuary recovery rule without a limitation period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Nov 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 May 2010 15:05:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79234" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (11) TMI 73 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40703</link>
      <description>Zinc rough rolled flat forms used in dry cell battery manufacture were treated as zinc sheets or strips under Item 26-B(2) because trade understanding in the battery industry brought the product within the tariff description. Internal consumption within the factory for making another excisable product did not prevent excise duty from attaching, as the statutory levy applied even without removal from the premises. On limitation, departmental proceedings for assessment and recovery were held not to be &quot;other legal proceedings&quot; under Section 40(2), and the demand was treated as falling under the residuary recovery rule without a limitation period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Nov 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40703</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>