<?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 (9) TMI 500 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104309</link>
    <description>Excise duty on IMFL is treated as a levy on manufacture, with primary liability resting on the manufacturer even if collection is deferred to a later stage. Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu Indian-made Foreign Spirits (Manufacture) Rules, 1981 was read as providing only a convenient advance-payment mechanism, not as shifting the duty burden to TASMAC. Accordingly, the purchaser&#039;s payment was regarded as discharge of the manufacturer&#039;s obligation and formed part of the manufacturer&#039;s taxable turnover. Explanation (1-A) to section 2(r) did not apply because the duty was not separately charged as tax and no equitable estoppel was established.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Jul 2014 14:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141348" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (9) TMI 500 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104309</link>
      <description>Excise duty on IMFL is treated as a levy on manufacture, with primary liability resting on the manufacturer even if collection is deferred to a later stage. Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu Indian-made Foreign Spirits (Manufacture) Rules, 1981 was read as providing only a convenient advance-payment mechanism, not as shifting the duty burden to TASMAC. Accordingly, the purchaser&#039;s payment was regarded as discharge of the manufacturer&#039;s obligation and formed part of the manufacturer&#039;s taxable turnover. Explanation (1-A) to section 2(r) did not apply because the duty was not separately charged as tax and no equitable estoppel was established.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104309</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>