<?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>1985 (10) TMI 180 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72088</link>
    <description>The cess on paper and paperboard was held recoverable for the period from 1 November 1980 to 16 February 1981 because the levy itself had already taken effect from 1 November 1980 under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. The later notification and the Paper and Paper Board Cess Rules, 1981 were treated as machinery provisions for assessment and collection, not as provisions postponing liability. The absence of a Collector before 16 February 1981 did not extinguish the tax obligation already created by the taxing event, and retrospective-operation arguments were distinguished. The demand for the back period was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Oct 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 May 2011 16:50:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=110368" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (10) TMI 180 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72088</link>
      <description>The cess on paper and paperboard was held recoverable for the period from 1 November 1980 to 16 February 1981 because the levy itself had already taken effect from 1 November 1980 under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. The later notification and the Paper and Paper Board Cess Rules, 1981 were treated as machinery provisions for assessment and collection, not as provisions postponing liability. The absence of a Collector before 16 February 1981 did not extinguish the tax obligation already created by the taxing event, and retrospective-operation arguments were distinguished. The demand for the back period was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Oct 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72088</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>