<?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 (5) TMI 410 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159756</link>
    <description>Electricity tariff fixed under statutory power is not automatically reducible when central excise duty on generation is later abolished. The Board had fixed tariff under the Electricity (Supply) Act with relevant cost factors in view, and the tariff notifications reserved only a right to increase rates if duty was enhanced; no corresponding obligation to lower tariff on abolition of duty existed. Section 64-A of the Sale of Goods Act also did not apply, because the tariff was statutorily fixed, not a negotiated contract, and the excise element had merged into the tariff. The consumer therefore had no enforceable right to a reduction, and judicial direction to lower the tariff was improper.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Jul 2014 10:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=337763" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (5) TMI 410 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159756</link>
      <description>Electricity tariff fixed under statutory power is not automatically reducible when central excise duty on generation is later abolished. The Board had fixed tariff under the Electricity (Supply) Act with relevant cost factors in view, and the tariff notifications reserved only a right to increase rates if duty was enhanced; no corresponding obligation to lower tariff on abolition of duty existed. Section 64-A of the Sale of Goods Act also did not apply, because the tariff was statutorily fixed, not a negotiated contract, and the excise element had merged into the tariff. The consumer therefore had no enforceable right to a reduction, and judicial direction to lower the tariff was improper.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159756</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>