<?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>2013 (7) TMI 76 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234918</link>
    <description>Rebate on exported pan masala and gutkha covered by the compounded levy scheme must be computed strictly under Notification No. 32/2008-C.E. (N.T.) read with Rule 14 of the Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules, 2008, because the special notification governs notified goods and the general rebate notification cannot be invoked independently. The text also states that rebate calculations must reflect correct arithmetic: where the monthly average rate per pouch was 2.1899, rounding it to 2.18 was improper and the figure had to be corrected to 2.19. The excess rebate claim was rejected on the first point, while the computation was modified on the rounding issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Jul 2013 09:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=197328" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (7) TMI 76 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234918</link>
      <description>Rebate on exported pan masala and gutkha covered by the compounded levy scheme must be computed strictly under Notification No. 32/2008-C.E. (N.T.) read with Rule 14 of the Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules, 2008, because the special notification governs notified goods and the general rebate notification cannot be invoked independently. The text also states that rebate calculations must reflect correct arithmetic: where the monthly average rate per pouch was 2.1899, rounding it to 2.18 was improper and the figure had to be corrected to 2.19. The excess rebate claim was rejected on the first point, while the computation was modified on the rounding issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234918</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>