<?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>1984 (11) TMI 183 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72720</link>
    <description>The majority judgment upheld the central excise authorities&#039; decision, rejecting the appeal. The minority view argued that the statutory price should be the assessable value without including the rebate, emphasizing that the control price was exclusive of excise duty. Editor&#039;s comments highlighted the confusion between &#039;tariff values&#039; and &#039;control prices,&#039; supporting reconsideration of the minority view.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 May 2011 15:45:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=110999" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (11) TMI 183 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72720</link>
      <description>The majority judgment upheld the central excise authorities&#039; decision, rejecting the appeal. The minority view argued that the statutory price should be the assessable value without including the rebate, emphasizing that the control price was exclusive of excise duty. Editor&#039;s comments highlighted the confusion between &#039;tariff values&#039; and &#039;control prices,&#039; supporting reconsideration of the minority view.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72720</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>