<?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 (5) TMI 32 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40815</link>
    <description>Packing matches in boxes with painted striking sides was treated as incidental or ancillary to completion of manufacture under section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, because the tariff scheme and rules showed packing in such boxes formed part of the product&#039;s completion for use. At the same time, the prosecution failed to prove the alleged excise offences beyond reasonable doubt: the evidence left room for the defence version that the goods were duty-paid and only being repacked after being drenched, and gaps in inquiry and non-examination of a material witness created unresolved doubt. The acquittal was therefore affirmed and the department&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 May 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 May 2010 10:48:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79346" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (5) TMI 32 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40815</link>
      <description>Packing matches in boxes with painted striking sides was treated as incidental or ancillary to completion of manufacture under section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, because the tariff scheme and rules showed packing in such boxes formed part of the product&#039;s completion for use. At the same time, the prosecution failed to prove the alleged excise offences beyond reasonable doubt: the evidence left room for the defence version that the goods were duty-paid and only being repacked after being drenched, and gaps in inquiry and non-examination of a material witness created unresolved doubt. The acquittal was therefore affirmed and the department&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 May 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40815</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>