<?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>2011 (9) TMI 426 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208545</link>
    <description>For excise duty, the applicable rate is determined by the date of clearance from the factory, even though manufacture remains the taxable event. Goods manufactured before an enhancement but cleared afterwards are therefore chargeable at the enhanced rate prevailing on the date of clearance. The Court followed earlier authority treating duty collection at removal as the operative point for rate determination, and accepted the revenue&#039;s position. The appeal succeeded and the High Court&#039;s order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Dec 2013 16:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=182007" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (9) TMI 426 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208545</link>
      <description>For excise duty, the applicable rate is determined by the date of clearance from the factory, even though manufacture remains the taxable event. Goods manufactured before an enhancement but cleared afterwards are therefore chargeable at the enhanced rate prevailing on the date of clearance. The Court followed earlier authority treating duty collection at removal as the operative point for rate determination, and accepted the revenue&#039;s position. The appeal succeeded and the High Court&#039;s order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208545</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>