<?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 (12) TMI 44 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42165</link>
    <description>Sawing round timber or timber logs into planks, beams, sleepers, chips and waste wood does not amount to manufacture unless the process produces a new commercial commodity with a distinct name, character and use. Applying the Section 2(f) test under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the material was found to retain its identity as timber after sawing, so central excise duty was not leviable on the processed timber. The challenge to the show cause notice was not treated as premature because it raised an admitted question of law and no prior factual adjudication was necessary. On that basis, the notices were quashed and enforcement of excise provisions was restrained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Jun 2010 15:31:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80694" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (12) TMI 44 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42165</link>
      <description>Sawing round timber or timber logs into planks, beams, sleepers, chips and waste wood does not amount to manufacture unless the process produces a new commercial commodity with a distinct name, character and use. Applying the Section 2(f) test under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the material was found to retain its identity as timber after sawing, so central excise duty was not leviable on the processed timber. The challenge to the show cause notice was not treated as premature because it raised an admitted question of law and no prior factual adjudication was necessary. On that basis, the notices were quashed and enforcement of excise provisions was restrained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42165</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>