<?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>1991 (7) TMI 80 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43023</link>
    <description>Backing duty-paid aluminium foils with plain or printed paper did not amount to manufacture because no distinct, identifiable commodity emerged and the backed foil remained the same commercial product. On that basis, duty could not be levied again on the same excisable goods under the same tariff entry, and the additional excise demand was unsustainable. The assessee was therefore entitled to refund for the relevant pre-1 March 1988 period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jul 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2010 16:48:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81552" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (7) TMI 80 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43023</link>
      <description>Backing duty-paid aluminium foils with plain or printed paper did not amount to manufacture because no distinct, identifiable commodity emerged and the backed foil remained the same commercial product. On that basis, duty could not be levied again on the same excisable goods under the same tariff entry, and the additional excise demand was unsustainable. The assessee was therefore entitled to refund for the relevant pre-1 March 1988 period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jul 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43023</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>