<?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>1996 (9) TMI 124 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44319</link>
    <description>Board circulars issued to secure uniform classification and levy were treated as binding instructions, even though they did not expressly recite section 37B, because they were addressed to the excise hierarchy and required field formations to act on them. A later circular, issued after consultation with technical and agricultural authorities, clarified that micronutrients recognised under the Fertiliser Control Order, 1985 and falling within the relevant tariff treatment were classifiable as other fertilisers under Heading 31.05. The Revenue could not disregard an operative circular or insist that it applied only prospectively. On that basis, the excise duty demand could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2025 21:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82848" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (9) TMI 124 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44319</link>
      <description>Board circulars issued to secure uniform classification and levy were treated as binding instructions, even though they did not expressly recite section 37B, because they were addressed to the excise hierarchy and required field formations to act on them. A later circular, issued after consultation with technical and agricultural authorities, clarified that micronutrients recognised under the Fertiliser Control Order, 1985 and falling within the relevant tariff treatment were classifiable as other fertilisers under Heading 31.05. The Revenue could not disregard an operative circular or insist that it applied only prospectively. On that basis, the excise duty demand could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44319</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>