<?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 (9) TMI 84 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43208</link>
    <description>Plastic battery tops or cap seals, designed to cover battery cells and prevent leakage, corrosion and short circuits, lack the essential character of pilfer proof caps because they do not protect container contents against tampering. They also are neither primary cells nor primary batteries, and the relevant tariff heading does not extend to battery tops as parts of parts. Classification must follow the goods&#039; essential character and the tariff description. Consequently, the proposed excise classification failed, and the show cause notice and related demand proceedings founded on that classification were unsustainable. The record also did not support allegations of suppression warranting an extended limitation period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Sep 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 17:26:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81737" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (9) TMI 84 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43208</link>
      <description>Plastic battery tops or cap seals, designed to cover battery cells and prevent leakage, corrosion and short circuits, lack the essential character of pilfer proof caps because they do not protect container contents against tampering. They also are neither primary cells nor primary batteries, and the relevant tariff heading does not extend to battery tops as parts of parts. Classification must follow the goods&#039; essential character and the tariff description. Consequently, the proposed excise classification failed, and the show cause notice and related demand proceedings founded on that classification were unsustainable. The record also did not support allegations of suppression warranting an extended limitation period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Sep 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43208</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>