<?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 (4) TMI 116 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40843</link>
    <description>Under the central excise scheme, the taxable event is removal of the goods, and duty is chargeable at the rate prevailing on the date of removal rather than manufacture. A demand notice issued before the goods were removed, or sought to be removed, was contrary to the levy scheme and without jurisdiction. The notices were therefore invalid and were set aside, and enforcement against the respondents was restrained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 May 2010 12:23:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79374" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (4) TMI 116 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40843</link>
      <description>Under the central excise scheme, the taxable event is removal of the goods, and duty is chargeable at the rate prevailing on the date of removal rather than manufacture. A demand notice issued before the goods were removed, or sought to be removed, was contrary to the levy scheme and without jurisdiction. The notices were therefore invalid and were set aside, and enforcement against the respondents was restrained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40843</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>