<?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 (2) TMI 158 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44538</link>
    <description>Area-based excise zoning for tea depended on the territorial area covered by each zone, not on the later administrative name of the district. Where a district was created by bifurcation from an area already placed in a specified zone, that area did not move into the residuary zone merely because the notification was not amended to name the new district. The classification remained unchanged for duty purposes, and the claim for the lower residuary rate was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Jan 2015 12:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=83067" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (2) TMI 158 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44538</link>
      <description>Area-based excise zoning for tea depended on the territorial area covered by each zone, not on the later administrative name of the district. Where a district was created by bifurcation from an area already placed in a specified zone, that area did not move into the residuary zone merely because the notification was not amended to name the new district. The classification remained unchanged for duty purposes, and the claim for the lower residuary rate was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44538</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>