<?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 (9) TMI 60 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41276</link>
    <description>Excise duty on molasses was treated as payable at the stage of removal from the factory or approved storage, because the Central Excise Rules link liability to clearance rather than the date of manufacture. On that basis, the rate in force when the goods were removed governed the levy, and the absence of retrospective wording in the Finance Act did not prevent duty on stock cleared after the new tariff entry came into force. Once molasses was brought under a specific tariff item, the earlier exemption notification tied to the former residuary classification no longer applied, so the duty challenge failed and the petitions were rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Sep 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Jun 2010 16:35:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79807" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (9) TMI 60 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41276</link>
      <description>Excise duty on molasses was treated as payable at the stage of removal from the factory or approved storage, because the Central Excise Rules link liability to clearance rather than the date of manufacture. On that basis, the rate in force when the goods were removed governed the levy, and the absence of retrospective wording in the Finance Act did not prevent duty on stock cleared after the new tariff entry came into force. Once molasses was brought under a specific tariff item, the earlier exemption notification tied to the former residuary classification no longer applied, so the duty challenge failed and the petitions were rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Sep 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41276</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>