<?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>1973 (2) TMI 54 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40723</link>
    <description>For exemption from central excise duty on electric batteries under the 18 April 1955 notification and 2 May 1958 trade notice, only workers engaged in the manufacturing process connected with the excisable goods were relevant for the five-worker limit. The definition of &quot;worker&quot; in the Factories Act could not be read so broadly as to include employees in unrelated activities carried on in the same premises, such as motor car repairs or recharging customer batteries. As the battery assembling section was separate and employed not more than four workers, the exemption conditions were met and the duty demand was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Feb 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 May 2010 18:27:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79254" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1973 (2) TMI 54 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40723</link>
      <description>For exemption from central excise duty on electric batteries under the 18 April 1955 notification and 2 May 1958 trade notice, only workers engaged in the manufacturing process connected with the excisable goods were relevant for the five-worker limit. The definition of &quot;worker&quot; in the Factories Act could not be read so broadly as to include employees in unrelated activities carried on in the same premises, such as motor car repairs or recharging customer batteries. As the battery assembling section was separate and employed not more than four workers, the exemption conditions were met and the duty demand was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Feb 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40723</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>