<?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>1997 (3) TMI 178 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86434</link>
    <description>Rule 173C(11) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 permits removal of goods on declared invoice prices where the nature of the goods or frequent market fluctuations justify it, and the same power includes withdrawal of that permission if circumstances change or the concession is being abused to the detriment of revenue. However, the proviso also preserves the normal remedy of reassessment and recovery of any duty shortfall where the declared price does not reflect value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On the facts noted, the basis for revocation was not shown with sufficient clarity, so withdrawal was not justified, while the Revenue&#039;s right to recover any balance duty remained unaffected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:31:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123501" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (3) TMI 178 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86434</link>
      <description>Rule 173C(11) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 permits removal of goods on declared invoice prices where the nature of the goods or frequent market fluctuations justify it, and the same power includes withdrawal of that permission if circumstances change or the concession is being abused to the detriment of revenue. However, the proviso also preserves the normal remedy of reassessment and recovery of any duty shortfall where the declared price does not reflect value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On the facts noted, the basis for revocation was not shown with sufficient clarity, so withdrawal was not justified, while the Revenue&#039;s right to recover any balance duty remained unaffected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86434</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>