<?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 (4) TMI 68 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42277</link>
    <description>A mere change of name, separate designation, opening of a bank account, or administrative grouping does not amount to transfer of a licensed business unless there is conveyance of right, title, interest, or ownership. On the facts, no transfer was established and the finding could not stand. Use of excisable goods for the permitted industrial purpose, with proper accounting, also did not amount to a breach of the condition governing use in the stated manner; the alleged contravention depended on the rejected transfer theory. The duty demands and connected notices were therefore unsustainable and were quashed with costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Jun 2010 12:19:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80806" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (4) TMI 68 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42277</link>
      <description>A mere change of name, separate designation, opening of a bank account, or administrative grouping does not amount to transfer of a licensed business unless there is conveyance of right, title, interest, or ownership. On the facts, no transfer was established and the finding could not stand. Use of excisable goods for the permitted industrial purpose, with proper accounting, also did not amount to a breach of the condition governing use in the stated manner; the alleged contravention depended on the rejected transfer theory. The duty demands and connected notices were therefore unsustainable and were quashed with costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42277</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>