<?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>1988 (2) TMI 68 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42183</link>
    <description>Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was stated to permit exemption of excisable goods by notification subject to conditions, and the power was not confined only to cases involving manufacturing processes. The text explains that an exemption condition may be linked to excisable goods or other relevant contingencies so long as it remains consistent with the Act and is germane to the subject of exemption. On that reasoning, a notification referring to box making, labelling, bandrolling and packaging in relation to matches was treated as a valid exercise of exemption power even if those processes were not strictly manufacturing processes, and the challenge to the notification failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Jun 2010 16:44:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80712" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (2) TMI 68 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42183</link>
      <description>Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was stated to permit exemption of excisable goods by notification subject to conditions, and the power was not confined only to cases involving manufacturing processes. The text explains that an exemption condition may be linked to excisable goods or other relevant contingencies so long as it remains consistent with the Act and is germane to the subject of exemption. On that reasoning, a notification referring to box making, labelling, bandrolling and packaging in relation to matches was treated as a valid exercise of exemption power even if those processes were not strictly manufacturing processes, and the challenge to the notification failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42183</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>