<?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 (12) TMI 62 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYD.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41462</link>
    <description>Cess under Section 9(1) of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 was held leviable on jute yarn produced by mills engaged in jute textiles, because the charging provision applies to goods manufactured in a scheduled industry and is not confined by the wording of the First Schedule entry. The subordinate Jute Manufacturers Cess Rules, 1976 and the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could regulate payment mechanics, but could not restrict the substantive levy. Jute yarn used captively within the factory and not removed from the premises remained liable to cess, as removal-based limitations could not override the statutory charge.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Dec 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Jun 2010 15:02:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79993" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (12) TMI 62 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYD.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41462</link>
      <description>Cess under Section 9(1) of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 was held leviable on jute yarn produced by mills engaged in jute textiles, because the charging provision applies to goods manufactured in a scheduled industry and is not confined by the wording of the First Schedule entry. The subordinate Jute Manufacturers Cess Rules, 1976 and the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could regulate payment mechanics, but could not restrict the substantive levy. Jute yarn used captively within the factory and not removed from the premises remained liable to cess, as removal-based limitations could not override the statutory charge.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Dec 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41462</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>