<?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>1977 (9) TMI 110 - Calcutta High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165603</link>
    <description>Excise valuation under Section 4 was limited to manufacturing cost and manufacturing profit, so post-manufacturing items such as packing, forwarding, freight and selling profit were excluded from the assessable value; trade discount was allowable if genuinely granted and properly computed. A writ petition remained maintainable despite the statutory appeal because the assessment was made without hearing the assessee or disclosing reasons, amounting to breach of natural justice. Although the assessment was found defective to that extent, restitution was refused because the duty had already been paid and credited, and the assessee had not separately claimed it at the relevant stage.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Aug 2014 15:08:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=361167" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (9) TMI 110 - Calcutta High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165603</link>
      <description>Excise valuation under Section 4 was limited to manufacturing cost and manufacturing profit, so post-manufacturing items such as packing, forwarding, freight and selling profit were excluded from the assessable value; trade discount was allowable if genuinely granted and properly computed. A writ petition remained maintainable despite the statutory appeal because the assessment was made without hearing the assessee or disclosing reasons, amounting to breach of natural justice. Although the assessment was found defective to that extent, restitution was refused because the duty had already been paid and credited, and the assessee had not separately claimed it at the relevant stage.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165603</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>