<?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 190 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87180</link>
    <description>For cess computation under Section 9(1) of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, the assessable value follows the same basis as Section 4(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On that principle, the excise duty element embedded in the wholesale price cannot be included in the assessable value for cess. The short-levy demand was therefore not justified, and a refund claim for cess paid in excess was maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 12:42:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124247" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (6) TMI 190 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87180</link>
      <description>For cess computation under Section 9(1) of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, the assessable value follows the same basis as Section 4(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On that principle, the excise duty element embedded in the wholesale price cannot be included in the assessable value for cess. The short-levy demand was therefore not justified, and a refund claim for cess paid in excess was maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87180</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>