<?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>1987 (7) TMI 100 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41979</link>
    <description>Ownership and control of the manufacturing set-up, coupled with sale of finished radios on a principal-to-principal basis, determined that the petitioners were independent manufacturers eligible for the small-scale exemption. The buyer&#039;s brand name and limited supply of components did not, by themselves, convert the arrangement into manufacture on behalf of the buyer or justify treating the buyer as the real manufacturer; the excise order on that footing was unsustainable. The Court also noted that availability of an alternative statutory remedy does not bar writ interference where the challenge raises jurisdictional illegality, and it declined to non-suit the petitioners on that ground. The exemption denial was quashed and consequential relief followed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Jun 2010 13:32:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80508" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (7) TMI 100 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41979</link>
      <description>Ownership and control of the manufacturing set-up, coupled with sale of finished radios on a principal-to-principal basis, determined that the petitioners were independent manufacturers eligible for the small-scale exemption. The buyer&#039;s brand name and limited supply of components did not, by themselves, convert the arrangement into manufacture on behalf of the buyer or justify treating the buyer as the real manufacturer; the excise order on that footing was unsustainable. The Court also noted that availability of an alternative statutory remedy does not bar writ interference where the challenge raises jurisdictional illegality, and it declined to non-suit the petitioners on that ground. The exemption denial was quashed and consequential relief followed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41979</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>