<?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>1993 (3) TMI 109 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43546</link>
    <description>Reduction in the thickness of imported copper wire bars and wire rods within municipal limits was treated as processing, not manufacture, for octroi exemption under Rule 7. Manufacture was confined to a transformation into a new commodity with a distinct name, character or use; mere size reduction without change in chemical composition or substantive identity did not meet that test. The activity therefore remained within the scope of temporary import for processing, and the exemption could not be denied on the basis that the process fell outside the rule. The Commissioner&#039;s finality clause did not exclude judicial review under Article 226, and the refusal was held to be unsupported by reasons.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Jun 2010 16:36:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82075" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (3) TMI 109 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43546</link>
      <description>Reduction in the thickness of imported copper wire bars and wire rods within municipal limits was treated as processing, not manufacture, for octroi exemption under Rule 7. Manufacture was confined to a transformation into a new commodity with a distinct name, character or use; mere size reduction without change in chemical composition or substantive identity did not meet that test. The activity therefore remained within the scope of temporary import for processing, and the exemption could not be denied on the basis that the process fell outside the rule. The Commissioner&#039;s finality clause did not exclude judicial review under Article 226, and the refusal was held to be unsupported by reasons.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43546</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>