<?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 (3) TMI 89 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41024</link>
    <description>The Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act and Rules permit manufacture of restricted medicinal preparations only under licence and subject to prescribed conditions, but they do not authorise a product-wise 10% ceiling on any single restricted preparation under an L-1 licence. Rule 84(2) allows the licensing authority to assess and, where necessary, reduce or refix the quantity of alcohol required by a manufacturer, while Rules 86 and 142 operate only within prescribed conditions and supplemental instructions. Rule 91(ix) requires disclosure of proposed preparations, but not a quantitative cap on one product. The 10% restriction, imposed to support the prohibition programme and prevent misuse, was therefore invalid for want of statutory authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 May 2010 11:24:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79555" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (3) TMI 89 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41024</link>
      <description>The Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act and Rules permit manufacture of restricted medicinal preparations only under licence and subject to prescribed conditions, but they do not authorise a product-wise 10% ceiling on any single restricted preparation under an L-1 licence. Rule 84(2) allows the licensing authority to assess and, where necessary, reduce or refix the quantity of alcohol required by a manufacturer, while Rules 86 and 142 operate only within prescribed conditions and supplemental instructions. Rule 91(ix) requires disclosure of proposed preparations, but not a quantitative cap on one product. The 10% restriction, imposed to support the prohibition programme and prevent misuse, was therefore invalid for want of statutory authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41024</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>