<?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 99 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45271</link>
    <description>Under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the taxable event is manufacture or production, while the timing of payment and collection may validly be linked to removal of goods for administrative convenience. Applying that scheme, Rule 9A of the Central Excise Rules was treated as consistent with Section 3 of the Act and not repugnant to the statutory framework. The challenge that Rule 9A was ultra vires therefore failed, and the appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2010 15:37:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=83800" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (1) TMI 99 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45271</link>
      <description>Under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the taxable event is manufacture or production, while the timing of payment and collection may validly be linked to removal of goods for administrative convenience. Applying that scheme, Rule 9A of the Central Excise Rules was treated as consistent with Section 3 of the Act and not repugnant to the statutory framework. The challenge that Rule 9A was ultra vires therefore failed, and the appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45271</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>