<?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>1981 (11) TMI 61 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41286</link>
    <description>Exemption for matches packed in boxes with both slides, or only the inner slide, made of cardboard did not extend to boxes with only the outer slide made of cardboard. Fiscal exemption notifications require strict construction according to their ordinary and grammatical language; benefits outside express wording cannot be imported by implication or policy considerations. The resulting duty demand was therefore sustainable. The classification was not shown to violate Article 14 because the available material did not establish that outer-slide cardboard box manufacturers were indistinguishable from the specified categories. The writ petitions and connected writ appeals failed, leaving the duty demand and interim orders substantively undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Jun 2010 17:05:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79817" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (11) TMI 61 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41286</link>
      <description>Exemption for matches packed in boxes with both slides, or only the inner slide, made of cardboard did not extend to boxes with only the outer slide made of cardboard. Fiscal exemption notifications require strict construction according to their ordinary and grammatical language; benefits outside express wording cannot be imported by implication or policy considerations. The resulting duty demand was therefore sustainable. The classification was not shown to violate Article 14 because the available material did not establish that outer-slide cardboard box manufacturers were indistinguishable from the specified categories. The writ petitions and connected writ appeals failed, leaving the duty demand and interim orders substantively undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41286</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>