<?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 (6) TMI 110 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86823</link>
    <description>Rebate allowed under the notification was held not to form part of the assessable value for excise duty, so the demand based on its inclusion could not be sustained. The separate question of rebate entitlement for the disputed quantity of vegetable products depended on factual verification of the prescribed oil-content condition, which had not been examined by the lower authorities, so the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on that limited issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Aug 2011 15:54:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123890" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (6) TMI 110 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86823</link>
      <description>Rebate allowed under the notification was held not to form part of the assessable value for excise duty, so the demand based on its inclusion could not be sustained. The separate question of rebate entitlement for the disputed quantity of vegetable products depended on factual verification of the prescribed oil-content condition, which had not been examined by the lower authorities, so the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on that limited issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86823</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>