<?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>1976 (9) TMI 46 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURES AT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41258</link>
    <description>Medicinal preparations may be treated as patent or proprietary medicines for excise purposes where the label, symbol, monogram, or overall style of presentation indicates a trade connection with the manufacturer, even if the product name is taken from the Indian Pharmacopoeia and no registered trade mark is claimed. On limitation, where there was no prior assessment, levy, or nil assessment, the demand was not a short-levy recovery under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, but fell within the residuary recovery provision under Rule 10A and was not time-barred. The excise demand was therefore sustained and the writ challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Sep 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 May 2010 18:12:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79789" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (9) TMI 46 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURES AT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41258</link>
      <description>Medicinal preparations may be treated as patent or proprietary medicines for excise purposes where the label, symbol, monogram, or overall style of presentation indicates a trade connection with the manufacturer, even if the product name is taken from the Indian Pharmacopoeia and no registered trade mark is claimed. On limitation, where there was no prior assessment, levy, or nil assessment, the demand was not a short-levy recovery under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, but fell within the residuary recovery provision under Rule 10A and was not time-barred. The excise demand was therefore sustained and the writ challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Sep 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41258</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>