<?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>2014 (2) TMI 3 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243401</link>
    <description>A dispute over inclusion of the value of material supplied by another concern for duty computation was treated as a valuation issue under the Central Excise Act, 1944. Because the controversy in substance related to assessment valuation, the statutory appeal route lay under Section 35L rather than Section 35G. On that basis, the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, and the appeal was held not maintainable before it.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Feb 2014 11:07:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=344409" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (2) TMI 3 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243401</link>
      <description>A dispute over inclusion of the value of material supplied by another concern for duty computation was treated as a valuation issue under the Central Excise Act, 1944. Because the controversy in substance related to assessment valuation, the statutory appeal route lay under Section 35L rather than Section 35G. On that basis, the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, and the appeal was held not maintainable before it.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243401</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>