<?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>1980 (1) TMI 92 - HIGH COURT OF BQMBAY ORIGINAL SIDE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40756</link>
    <description>Excise classification under Item 15 turned on commercial identity: lather shaving cream and shampoo were not treated as soap merely because they contained soap or were used as cleansers, and the department failed to prove that they were commercially known as soap. The later placement of shampoos and shaving creams under cosmetics and toilet preparations also supported this view. On manufacture, adding water, perfume and colour to purchased liquid soap did not create a new and different commodity with a distinct name, character or use, so the process was not manufacture of a new excisable product. The excise demands were therefore unsustainable and consequential relief followed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jan 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 May 2010 13:25:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79287" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (1) TMI 92 - HIGH COURT OF BQMBAY ORIGINAL SIDE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40756</link>
      <description>Excise classification under Item 15 turned on commercial identity: lather shaving cream and shampoo were not treated as soap merely because they contained soap or were used as cleansers, and the department failed to prove that they were commercially known as soap. The later placement of shampoos and shaving creams under cosmetics and toilet preparations also supported this view. On manufacture, adding water, perfume and colour to purchased liquid soap did not create a new and different commodity with a distinct name, character or use, so the process was not manufacture of a new excisable product. The excise demands were therefore unsustainable and consequential relief followed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jan 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40756</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>