<?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>1971 (7) TMI 58 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45644</link>
    <description>Board exemption directions issued under Rule 8 were construed according to their own language: they allowed small quantities of soda ash to be cleared duty-free for use within the factory, and were not confined to soda ash used only in purification of brine for a particular product. The later circulars merely adjusted the method of calculating the exempt quantity and could not narrow the earlier exemption. On limitation, the soda ash removals were not clandestine and were made on officers&#039; directions, so Rule 9 did not apply; the short levy arose from departmental error, bringing the demand within Rule 10 rather than the residuary Rule 10A. The demand notice was issued beyond time and was quashed, with refund directed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jul 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 10:26:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84171" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1971 (7) TMI 58 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45644</link>
      <description>Board exemption directions issued under Rule 8 were construed according to their own language: they allowed small quantities of soda ash to be cleared duty-free for use within the factory, and were not confined to soda ash used only in purification of brine for a particular product. The later circulars merely adjusted the method of calculating the exempt quantity and could not narrow the earlier exemption. On limitation, the soda ash removals were not clandestine and were made on officers&#039; directions, so Rule 9 did not apply; the short levy arose from departmental error, bringing the demand within Rule 10 rather than the residuary Rule 10A. The demand notice was issued beyond time and was quashed, with refund directed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jul 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45644</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>