<?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>1995 (6) TMI 32 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47489</link>
    <description>The Court quashed the demand order confirming excise duty for the product &#039;Protectone&#039; for a specific period, ruling it illegal and lacking legal authority. The re-classification was held effective from the date of the show cause notice, and the demand for excise duty prior to the notice was deemed unauthorized. The Court emphasized the finality of the approvals of classification lists and the inapplicability of the exemption notification claimed. Legal precedents were compared, leading to the conclusion that the petitioners were not liable to pay excise duty for the specified period, resulting in the order&#039;s quashing and recovery amount set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jun 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:00:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=86008" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (6) TMI 32 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47489</link>
      <description>The Court quashed the demand order confirming excise duty for the product &#039;Protectone&#039; for a specific period, ruling it illegal and lacking legal authority. The re-classification was held effective from the date of the show cause notice, and the demand for excise duty prior to the notice was deemed unauthorized. The Court emphasized the finality of the approvals of classification lists and the inapplicability of the exemption notification claimed. Legal precedents were compared, leading to the conclusion that the petitioners were not liable to pay excise duty for the specified period, resulting in the order&#039;s quashing and recovery amount set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jun 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47489</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>