<?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>1983 (2) TMI 49 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41320</link>
    <description>Lead suboxide and lead monoxide manufactured from customer-supplied lead on job work were treated as exempt under Notification No. 119/75-C.E. because manufacture may produce a commercially different product and still remain job work where the material is supplied by the customer and charges are confined to the work done. Excise duty levied contrary to that exemption was treated as unlawful. Refund and quashing relief were also considered available in writ jurisdiction where duty had been paid under protest, despite the statutory refund mechanism, and objections based on alternative remedy and delay were rejected on the facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Feb 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Jun 2010 10:32:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79851" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (2) TMI 49 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41320</link>
      <description>Lead suboxide and lead monoxide manufactured from customer-supplied lead on job work were treated as exempt under Notification No. 119/75-C.E. because manufacture may produce a commercially different product and still remain job work where the material is supplied by the customer and charges are confined to the work done. Excise duty levied contrary to that exemption was treated as unlawful. Refund and quashing relief were also considered available in writ jurisdiction where duty had been paid under protest, despite the statutory refund mechanism, and objections based on alternative remedy and delay were rejected on the facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Feb 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41320</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>