<?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>2003 (8) TMI 369 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108629</link>
    <description>Under Notification No. 245/87, the deduction from retail price for excise duty was not confined to basic excise duty alone. Reading the notification with Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the deductible amount of excise duty payable was treated as including special excise duty under the relevant Finance Act as well. On that construction, the amount to be deducted before applying the prescribed discount covered both duties, and the appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Apr 2012 10:40:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145646" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (8) TMI 369 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108629</link>
      <description>Under Notification No. 245/87, the deduction from retail price for excise duty was not confined to basic excise duty alone. Reading the notification with Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the deductible amount of excise duty payable was treated as including special excise duty under the relevant Finance Act as well. On that construction, the amount to be deducted before applying the prescribed discount covered both duties, and the appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108629</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>