<?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>1996 (9) TMI 599 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165498</link>
    <description>Under the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 and the Orissa Excise Exclusive Privilege Rules, 1970, sums payable under licence conditions for minimum guaranteed quantity and excise duty instalments were treated as contractual consideration for the grant of exclusive privilege to sell liquor, not as an unauthorised levy of excise duty. The Court applied the statutory scheme permitting the State to grant exclusive privilege on terms it deemed fit and to fix consideration by auction or tender, and distinguished authorities based on absence of statutory power to demand payment without sale. It also held that a licensee who voluntarily accepted and worked the licence could not use Article 226 to avoid those obligations. The State&#039;s appeals succeeded and the High Court&#039;s interference was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2014 18:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=360511" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (9) TMI 599 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165498</link>
      <description>Under the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 and the Orissa Excise Exclusive Privilege Rules, 1970, sums payable under licence conditions for minimum guaranteed quantity and excise duty instalments were treated as contractual consideration for the grant of exclusive privilege to sell liquor, not as an unauthorised levy of excise duty. The Court applied the statutory scheme permitting the State to grant exclusive privilege on terms it deemed fit and to fix consideration by auction or tender, and distinguished authorities based on absence of statutory power to demand payment without sale. It also held that a licensee who voluntarily accepted and worked the licence could not use Article 226 to avoid those obligations. The State&#039;s appeals succeeded and the High Court&#039;s interference was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165498</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>