<?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>1986 (2) TMI 61 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41696</link>
    <description>A fiscal scheme for tobacco excise treats manufacture or production as the taxable event, and the charging provision must be read with the removal and transfer rules so that primary liability is not defeated by a sale or intimation of transfer. Rule 19 fastens liability on the curer once the tobacco is cured and fit for sale, while Rule 29 operates only as an enabling collection mechanism against the purchaser as well, and does not extinguish the curer&#039;s liability unless duty is actually recovered from the purchaser. A construction allowing escape from duty on mere notice of transfer was rejected, and the curer&#039;s liability was treated as continuing until duty is effectively discharged.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Feb 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Jun 2010 13:42:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80225" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (2) TMI 61 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41696</link>
      <description>A fiscal scheme for tobacco excise treats manufacture or production as the taxable event, and the charging provision must be read with the removal and transfer rules so that primary liability is not defeated by a sale or intimation of transfer. Rule 19 fastens liability on the curer once the tobacco is cured and fit for sale, while Rule 29 operates only as an enabling collection mechanism against the purchaser as well, and does not extinguish the curer&#039;s liability unless duty is actually recovered from the purchaser. A construction allowing escape from duty on mere notice of transfer was rejected, and the curer&#039;s liability was treated as continuing until duty is effectively discharged.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Feb 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41696</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>