<?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 (9) TMI 100 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41209</link>
    <description>A firm that supplies yarn, arranges weaving on unauthorised powerlooms, and buys back the finished cotton fabrics may be treated as the master-weaver and, for excise purposes, as the manufacturer where its own records and partner statements show operational control. Separate assertions that some looms belonged to family members, and separate income-tax assessments of partners, did not displace central excise liability. The duty demand on the unauthorised powerlooms was therefore sustained. On penalty, the circumstances were considered only for limited relief, and the penalty was reduced to Rs. 20,000 while the rest of the order was maintained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 20 Sep 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 May 2010 12:24:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79740" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (9) TMI 100 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41209</link>
      <description>A firm that supplies yarn, arranges weaving on unauthorised powerlooms, and buys back the finished cotton fabrics may be treated as the master-weaver and, for excise purposes, as the manufacturer where its own records and partner statements show operational control. Separate assertions that some looms belonged to family members, and separate income-tax assessments of partners, did not displace central excise liability. The duty demand on the unauthorised powerlooms was therefore sustained. On penalty, the circumstances were considered only for limited relief, and the penalty was reduced to Rs. 20,000 while the rest of the order was maintained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 20 Sep 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41209</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>