<?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 (8) TMI 97 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42007</link>
    <description>A delegated exemption notification could not supply an exhaustive definition of &quot;rigid&quot; and &quot;flexible&quot; plastic articles where the tariff item itself used those terms without definition. The court treated classification for duty purposes as a legislative function and held that the notification could not create a fresh classification scheme or displace the trade, commercial and ordinary meaning earlier applied to the tariff entry. Because the notification went beyond the scope of the delegated power and altered the scope of exemption, it was invalid and the petitioners were entitled to exemption.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Aug 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Jun 2010 15:32:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80536" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (8) TMI 97 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42007</link>
      <description>A delegated exemption notification could not supply an exhaustive definition of &quot;rigid&quot; and &quot;flexible&quot; plastic articles where the tariff item itself used those terms without definition. The court treated classification for duty purposes as a legislative function and held that the notification could not create a fresh classification scheme or displace the trade, commercial and ordinary meaning earlier applied to the tariff entry. Because the notification went beyond the scope of the delegated power and altered the scope of exemption, it was invalid and the petitioners were entitled to exemption.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Aug 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42007</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>