<?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>1961 (7) TMI 1 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45639</link>
    <description>Writ relief was declined where an appellate remedy existed but the challenge was pursued with inordinate delay, and the record showed no prompt prosecution of the dispute. The complaint of breach of natural justice also failed because the material relied on by the officers had been put to the petitioners at personal hearings, their representatives were allowed to explain the entries and transactions, and no concrete prejudice or denial of hearing was shown. On liability, the expression &quot;manufacturer&quot; under excise law was treated as broad and inclusive, extending beyond the owner of the factory to a person who arranges manufacture and sale through others on his own account; excise duty was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jul 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2015 15:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84166" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1961 (7) TMI 1 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45639</link>
      <description>Writ relief was declined where an appellate remedy existed but the challenge was pursued with inordinate delay, and the record showed no prompt prosecution of the dispute. The complaint of breach of natural justice also failed because the material relied on by the officers had been put to the petitioners at personal hearings, their representatives were allowed to explain the entries and transactions, and no concrete prejudice or denial of hearing was shown. On liability, the expression &quot;manufacturer&quot; under excise law was treated as broad and inclusive, extending beyond the owner of the factory to a person who arranges manufacture and sale through others on his own account; excise duty was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jul 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45639</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>