<?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>1979 (11) TMI 101 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40720</link>
    <description>Cold wax emulsion and cold aluminium acetate used as after-treatments in sulphur black dyeing were treated as part of the dyeing process, because the decisive character of the operation lay in restoring suppleness, improving fastness and protecting the fabric, not in any incidental water-repellent effect. The fabric was therefore classifiable as dyed fabrics, and the revisional order was unsustainable on that point. Where a short-levy demand followed an assessment already made, Rule 10 applied rather than the residuary Rule 10A; the first demand notice was accordingly substantially time-barred. The appellate view was restored, the revisional order set aside, and relief including refund verification followed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Nov 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 May 2010 17:49:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79251" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1979 (11) TMI 101 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40720</link>
      <description>Cold wax emulsion and cold aluminium acetate used as after-treatments in sulphur black dyeing were treated as part of the dyeing process, because the decisive character of the operation lay in restoring suppleness, improving fastness and protecting the fabric, not in any incidental water-repellent effect. The fabric was therefore classifiable as dyed fabrics, and the revisional order was unsustainable on that point. Where a short-levy demand followed an assessment already made, Rule 10 applied rather than the residuary Rule 10A; the first demand notice was accordingly substantially time-barred. The appellate view was restored, the revisional order set aside, and relief including refund verification followed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Nov 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40720</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>