<?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>1973 (3) TMI 61 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45606</link>
    <description>Excise duty liability on recovered coffee seeds depended on whether the transfer occurred through a licensed transaction contemplated by the excise rules. Reading the removal, sale and transfer provisions together, the court found no evidence that the intermediary purchaser was licensed, so the respondent did not fall within the rule fastening duty on the purchaser or possessor; the duty demand therefore failed. On confiscation, the adapted customs provisions were treated as authorising confiscation of excisable goods removed in contravention of the rules, even if the goods had not changed form. The confiscation order was therefore sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Mar 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Jul 2010 17:27:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84133" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1973 (3) TMI 61 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45606</link>
      <description>Excise duty liability on recovered coffee seeds depended on whether the transfer occurred through a licensed transaction contemplated by the excise rules. Reading the removal, sale and transfer provisions together, the court found no evidence that the intermediary purchaser was licensed, so the respondent did not fall within the rule fastening duty on the purchaser or possessor; the duty demand therefore failed. On confiscation, the adapted customs provisions were treated as authorising confiscation of excisable goods removed in contravention of the rules, even if the goods had not changed form. The confiscation order was therefore sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Mar 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45606</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>