<?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 (10) TMI 71 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41004</link>
    <description>Excise duty on an intermediate product is not attracted where blended non-cellulosic spun yarn remains within a continuous, integrated composite manufacturing process and is not removed as a distinct commodity for sale or separate use. Sizing is treated as a preparatory process that strengthens yarn for weaving, but does not create a new commercial product or fresh taxable event merely because the yarn has been sized. The text also notes that territorial jurisdiction can exist where part of the cause of action arises within the court&#039;s limits, even if assessing authorities are located elsewhere. The stated position is that duty on cone yarn and sized yarn was not leviable on these facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 May 2010 16:36:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79535" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (10) TMI 71 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41004</link>
      <description>Excise duty on an intermediate product is not attracted where blended non-cellulosic spun yarn remains within a continuous, integrated composite manufacturing process and is not removed as a distinct commodity for sale or separate use. Sizing is treated as a preparatory process that strengthens yarn for weaving, but does not create a new commercial product or fresh taxable event merely because the yarn has been sized. The text also notes that territorial jurisdiction can exist where part of the cause of action arises within the court&#039;s limits, even if assessing authorities are located elsewhere. The stated position is that duty on cone yarn and sized yarn was not leviable on these facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41004</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>