<?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>1982 (3) TMI 65 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41065</link>
    <description>Writ jurisdiction was held maintainable despite statutory appeal and revision because the challenge involved constitutional validity and alleged violation of fundamental rights, which departmental remedies could not effectively decide. Mixed ground masalas were treated as commercially distinct, marketable goods brought into existence by grinding and mixing spices, so they amounted to manufacture and fell within the residuary excise entry under Tariff Item 68. The exemption for food products or food preparations did not extend to masalas merely because they are used in food, so the notification was inapplicable and the excise levy was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 May 2010 17:07:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79596" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (3) TMI 65 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41065</link>
      <description>Writ jurisdiction was held maintainable despite statutory appeal and revision because the challenge involved constitutional validity and alleged violation of fundamental rights, which departmental remedies could not effectively decide. Mixed ground masalas were treated as commercially distinct, marketable goods brought into existence by grinding and mixing spices, so they amounted to manufacture and fell within the residuary excise entry under Tariff Item 68. The exemption for food products or food preparations did not extend to masalas merely because they are used in food, so the notification was inapplicable and the excise levy was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41065</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>