<?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>1990 (4) TMI 57 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42725</link>
    <description>Resin master and dipping solution used only as intermediate products for immediate captive consumption were not exigible to excise duty because they were neither marketed nor marketable, and manufacture alone did not attract levy. The adjudication confirming duty and penalty was also without jurisdiction, as it was concluded after deletion of the earlier procedural rules and introduction of Section 11-A, with no saving clause preserving the proceedings. The writ petition remained maintainable because the challenge went to jurisdiction, and the availability of an alternative statutory remedy did not preclude relief in the circumstances.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Apr 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Jun 2010 18:46:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81254" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (4) TMI 57 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42725</link>
      <description>Resin master and dipping solution used only as intermediate products for immediate captive consumption were not exigible to excise duty because they were neither marketed nor marketable, and manufacture alone did not attract levy. The adjudication confirming duty and penalty was also without jurisdiction, as it was concluded after deletion of the earlier procedural rules and introduction of Section 11-A, with no saving clause preserving the proceedings. The writ petition remained maintainable because the challenge went to jurisdiction, and the availability of an alternative statutory remedy did not preclude relief in the circumstances.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Apr 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42725</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>