<?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>1987 (1) TMI 373 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80109</link>
    <description>Refund of excise duty on exempt clearances under Notification No. 71/78-C.E. had to be computed on the assessable value as inclusive of duty recovered from customers. Because the assessee had collected the duty element from buyers, that recovered amount was taken into account even though duty was not otherwise payable on the exempt clearances. The refund was therefore confined to the amount correctly worked out on that assessable value, and the partial rejection of the refund claim was upheld against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Jun 2011 18:12:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=117255" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (1) TMI 373 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80109</link>
      <description>Refund of excise duty on exempt clearances under Notification No. 71/78-C.E. had to be computed on the assessable value as inclusive of duty recovered from customers. Because the assessee had collected the duty element from buyers, that recovered amount was taken into account even though duty was not otherwise payable on the exempt clearances. The refund was therefore confined to the amount correctly worked out on that assessable value, and the partial rejection of the refund claim was upheld against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80109</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>