<?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 (10) TMI 42 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41040</link>
    <description>A departmental trade notice cannot override a taxing statute or bind excise authorities under promissory estoppel, so it cannot narrow Tariff Item No. 59. Varnished fibreglass tapes and glass mica tapes were treated as electric insulation tapes because they were coated or impregnated with insulating material, used for covering electric wires and cables, and were not shown on reliable evidence to fall outside the commercial understanding of that description. The demand was held not to be time-barred, with recovery provisions applying on the facts. Penalty and fine were sustained because contravention of the Act and Rules was established and no legal basis for interference was shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 May 2010 12:19:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79571" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (10) TMI 42 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41040</link>
      <description>A departmental trade notice cannot override a taxing statute or bind excise authorities under promissory estoppel, so it cannot narrow Tariff Item No. 59. Varnished fibreglass tapes and glass mica tapes were treated as electric insulation tapes because they were coated or impregnated with insulating material, used for covering electric wires and cables, and were not shown on reliable evidence to fall outside the commercial understanding of that description. The demand was held not to be time-barred, with recovery provisions applying on the facts. Penalty and fine were sustained because contravention of the Act and Rules was established and no legal basis for interference was shown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41040</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>