<?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>1995 (1) TMI 88 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44160</link>
    <description>Fabrication by drilling, cutting, welding and placing steel articles in a shed was treated as fabrication, not manufacture, because the items did not emerge as excisable goods. On that factual basis, the proposed excise levy under the charging provision could not be sustained, and the demand notice was quashed as invalid and without jurisdiction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:54:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82689" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (1) TMI 88 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44160</link>
      <description>Fabrication by drilling, cutting, welding and placing steel articles in a shed was treated as fabrication, not manufacture, because the items did not emerge as excisable goods. On that factual basis, the proposed excise levy under the charging provision could not be sustained, and the demand notice was quashed as invalid and without jurisdiction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44160</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>