<?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 (7) TMI 88 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41240</link>
    <description>An amended excise exemption notification was held to be a substantive amendment, not a mere clarification, because it broadened the meaning of &quot;processed&quot; rayon or artificial silk fabrics to include processes carried on with power or steam, subject only to the stated exclusion for calendering with plain rollers. Since the authorities had earlier treated fabrics dyed or printed without power or with steam as outside the processed category, the later notification could not be applied retrospectively to enlarge liability for the prior period. The demand raised on that basis was therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 May 2010 15:32:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79771" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (7) TMI 88 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41240</link>
      <description>An amended excise exemption notification was held to be a substantive amendment, not a mere clarification, because it broadened the meaning of &quot;processed&quot; rayon or artificial silk fabrics to include processes carried on with power or steam, subject only to the stated exclusion for calendering with plain rollers. Since the authorities had earlier treated fabrics dyed or printed without power or with steam as outside the processed category, the later notification could not be applied retrospectively to enlarge liability for the prior period. The demand raised on that basis was therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41240</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>