<?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>2000 (5) TMI 271 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93561</link>
    <description>For valuation of patent and proprietary medicaments under Notification No. 245/83, the expression &quot;excise duty&quot; deductible from the price was held to include special excise duty as well as basic excise duty. The Tribunal followed its earlier ruling and interpreted the notification language broadly because the term was used without restriction. Special excise duty was therefore deductible in computing assessable value, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Nov 2011 13:25:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130622" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (5) TMI 271 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93561</link>
      <description>For valuation of patent and proprietary medicaments under Notification No. 245/83, the expression &quot;excise duty&quot; deductible from the price was held to include special excise duty as well as basic excise duty. The Tribunal followed its earlier ruling and interpreted the notification language broadly because the term was used without restriction. Special excise duty was therefore deductible in computing assessable value, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93561</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>