<?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 (1) TMI 34 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40724</link>
    <description>Quasi-judicial excise authorities cannot be bound by an administrative direction that dictates the result of assessment; a directive requiring inclusion of the censor certificate length in the assessable film length is invalid because independent decision-making is mandatory. The censor certificate length was also not excisable goods under Item No. 37, as excise applies only to manufactured articles that are marketable and ordinarily capable of being bought and sold. Mere printing, processing, or attachment to the feature film did not create a separate article of commerce. The demand and consequential appellate and revisional orders were therefore quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jan 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 May 2010 18:30:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79255" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (1) TMI 34 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40724</link>
      <description>Quasi-judicial excise authorities cannot be bound by an administrative direction that dictates the result of assessment; a directive requiring inclusion of the censor certificate length in the assessable film length is invalid because independent decision-making is mandatory. The censor certificate length was also not excisable goods under Item No. 37, as excise applies only to manufactured articles that are marketable and ordinarily capable of being bought and sold. Mere printing, processing, or attachment to the feature film did not create a separate article of commerce. The demand and consequential appellate and revisional orders were therefore quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jan 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40724</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>