<?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>1981 (8) TMI 72 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40962</link>
    <description>Power used only at the preliminary stage of unloading or transferring liquid raw materials into storage tanks did not amount to power used in or in relation to manufacture where no change occurred in the materials until the later reaction stage. Applying the settled test that manufacture requires a transformation into a commercially different product, the Court held that the exemption under Notification No. 101/66 was not lost on that basis and the assessee remained entitled to it. The writ petition was also maintainable because the dispute turned on interpretation of the exemption notification, the facts were broadly undisputed, and the existence of departmental remedies did not bar judicial review in those circumstances.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 May 2010 15:36:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79493" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (8) TMI 72 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40962</link>
      <description>Power used only at the preliminary stage of unloading or transferring liquid raw materials into storage tanks did not amount to power used in or in relation to manufacture where no change occurred in the materials until the later reaction stage. Applying the settled test that manufacture requires a transformation into a commercially different product, the Court held that the exemption under Notification No. 101/66 was not lost on that basis and the assessee remained entitled to it. The writ petition was also maintainable because the dispute turned on interpretation of the exemption notification, the facts were broadly undisputed, and the existence of departmental remedies did not bar judicial review in those circumstances.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40962</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>