<?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>1965 (3) TMI 16 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45813</link>
    <description>Mustard oil, being a fixed vegetable oil extracted from mustard seeds, was treated as falling within &quot;vegetable non-essential oils&quot; in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The court distinguished technical &quot;essential oils&quot; from fixed or fatty oils and held that vegetable oils other than essential oils are properly classifiable as non-essential oils. The argument that the expression was vague was rejected because the statutory language was considered sufficiently certain and used in similar legislative contexts. The rule that ambiguity in taxing statutes is resolved in favour of the assessee was held inapplicable, and the challenge to excise levy and collection failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Mar 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 10:13:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84340" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (3) TMI 16 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45813</link>
      <description>Mustard oil, being a fixed vegetable oil extracted from mustard seeds, was treated as falling within &quot;vegetable non-essential oils&quot; in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The court distinguished technical &quot;essential oils&quot; from fixed or fatty oils and held that vegetable oils other than essential oils are properly classifiable as non-essential oils. The argument that the expression was vague was rejected because the statutory language was considered sufficiently certain and used in similar legislative contexts. The rule that ambiguity in taxing statutes is resolved in favour of the assessee was held inapplicable, and the challenge to excise levy and collection failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Mar 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45813</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>