<?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 (11) TMI 68 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41451</link>
    <description>Aluminium strips made from aluminium wire rods were held outside the exemption and set-off notification because the benefit applied only to strips manufactured from aluminium in crude form from the specified materials. The duty on the finished strips was treated as independent of duty earlier paid on the base product, so the demand stood. On limitation, the relevant period was computed with reference to finalisation of the RT-12 return, making the demand from 1 May 1969 timely. A corrigendum correcting the authority named in the show-cause notice did not invalidate the proceedings, and the objection that the notice was vague was rejected as unsubstantiated.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Jun 2010 13:33:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79982" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (11) TMI 68 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41451</link>
      <description>Aluminium strips made from aluminium wire rods were held outside the exemption and set-off notification because the benefit applied only to strips manufactured from aluminium in crude form from the specified materials. The duty on the finished strips was treated as independent of duty earlier paid on the base product, so the demand stood. On limitation, the relevant period was computed with reference to finalisation of the RT-12 return, making the demand from 1 May 1969 timely. A corrigendum correcting the authority named in the show-cause notice did not invalidate the proceedings, and the objection that the notice was vague was rejected as unsubstantiated.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41451</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>