<?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 (4) TMI 38 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45690</link>
    <description>Agricultural implements and hand-tools made from iron or steel were held not to fall within item 26AA of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 because that entry was construed as applying to the first manufacture from raw material, not to further products made from already manufactured iron or steel goods. Even on the assumption that the goods were iron or steel products, they were also held outside sub-item (ia) because &quot;rolled, forged or extruded shapes and sections&quot; did not ordinarily or technically include such implements. Applying the rule that a charging provision must clearly cover the goods taxed, the excise demand was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Apr 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 12:32:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84217" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1971 (4) TMI 38 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45690</link>
      <description>Agricultural implements and hand-tools made from iron or steel were held not to fall within item 26AA of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 because that entry was construed as applying to the first manufacture from raw material, not to further products made from already manufactured iron or steel goods. Even on the assumption that the goods were iron or steel products, they were also held outside sub-item (ia) because &quot;rolled, forged or extruded shapes and sections&quot; did not ordinarily or technically include such implements. Applying the rule that a charging provision must clearly cover the goods taxed, the excise demand was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Apr 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45690</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>