<?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>2000 (2) TMI 114 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45855</link>
    <description>Seeakkai Powder and Arappu Thool were held to be natural products falling outside the tariff descriptions for soap, detergent, cosmetic, toilet preparation, bath preparation and scouring powder under Chapters 33 and 34. The Court applied ejusdem generis to construe the word &quot;other&quot; in context and held that goods not answering the specified headings cannot be treated as excisable by resort to a residuary expression. As the products were outside the tariff entry, the excise authorities lacked jurisdiction to insist on registration or levy duty, and the writ petition was maintainable despite any alternative remedy.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 12:15:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84382" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (2) TMI 114 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45855</link>
      <description>Seeakkai Powder and Arappu Thool were held to be natural products falling outside the tariff descriptions for soap, detergent, cosmetic, toilet preparation, bath preparation and scouring powder under Chapters 33 and 34. The Court applied ejusdem generis to construe the word &quot;other&quot; in context and held that goods not answering the specified headings cannot be treated as excisable by resort to a residuary expression. As the products were outside the tariff entry, the excise authorities lacked jurisdiction to insist on registration or levy duty, and the writ petition was maintainable despite any alternative remedy.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45855</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>