<?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 (10) TMI 76 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44341</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court of India, in a case concerning excise duty on plastic piece parts, ruled that an amendment to the Central Excise Tariff did not impose duty but removed an existing exemption, making the parts liable to duty from the date of the amendment. The Court held that the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931, only applies to amendments that impose or increase duties, not exemptions. The Revenue was deemed correct in clarifying the scope of the declaration under the Act. The Tribunal&#039;s decision was upheld, classifying the parts under a different entry only upon the enactment of the amendment. The appeal was dismissed without costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2014 12:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82870" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (10) TMI 76 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44341</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court of India, in a case concerning excise duty on plastic piece parts, ruled that an amendment to the Central Excise Tariff did not impose duty but removed an existing exemption, making the parts liable to duty from the date of the amendment. The Court held that the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931, only applies to amendments that impose or increase duties, not exemptions. The Revenue was deemed correct in clarifying the scope of the declaration under the Act. The Tribunal&#039;s decision was upheld, classifying the parts under a different entry only upon the enactment of the amendment. The appeal was dismissed without costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44341</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>