<?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 90 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41253</link>
    <description>Later communications could not convert an earlier unconditional approval of classification lists into a provisional assessment under Rule 9B, because the approval had been completed without reservation and the rules did not confer a power of review. The administrative demand for a bond was therefore unsustainable. On exemption, fibre and tops made from duty-paid waste remained covered by Notification No. 37/78-C.E. where MEG was used only as an assisting agent, because the notification required manufacture out of duty-paid waste and did not impose an exclusivity restriction later found in a subsequent notification. The exemption claim for the relevant period was accordingly maintained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 May 2010 17:16:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79784" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (7) TMI 90 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41253</link>
      <description>Later communications could not convert an earlier unconditional approval of classification lists into a provisional assessment under Rule 9B, because the approval had been completed without reservation and the rules did not confer a power of review. The administrative demand for a bond was therefore unsustainable. On exemption, fibre and tops made from duty-paid waste remained covered by Notification No. 37/78-C.E. where MEG was used only as an assisting agent, because the notification required manufacture out of duty-paid waste and did not impose an exclusivity restriction later found in a subsequent notification. The exemption claim for the relevant period was accordingly maintained.</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=41253</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>