<?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>1974 (9) TMI 108 - Calcutta High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165581</link>
    <description>Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 requires excise valuation on the wholesale cash price of manufactured goods, excluding post-manufacturing expenses and post-manufacturing profits in principle. On the facts, however, the assessee did not establish ordinary arm&#039;s length wholesale sales or a reliable separation of manufacturing cost and manufacturing profit, so the existing assessments were not disturbed. Refund was also declined because the assessee had not pursued statutory appeal and revision remedies, the assessments were not shown to be without jurisdiction, and repayment would have resulted in unjust enrichment since the alleged excess duty had already been passed on to customers.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Sep 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Aug 2014 10:42:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=361144" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1974 (9) TMI 108 - Calcutta High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165581</link>
      <description>Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 requires excise valuation on the wholesale cash price of manufactured goods, excluding post-manufacturing expenses and post-manufacturing profits in principle. On the facts, however, the assessee did not establish ordinary arm&#039;s length wholesale sales or a reliable separation of manufacturing cost and manufacturing profit, so the existing assessments were not disturbed. Refund was also declined because the assessee had not pursued statutory appeal and revision remedies, the assessments were not shown to be without jurisdiction, and repayment would have resulted in unjust enrichment since the alleged excess duty had already been passed on to customers.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Sep 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165581</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>