https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165722 For self-removal duty computation, plywood varieties attracting different central excise rates cannot be clubbed into one common calculation. The Government of India held that two varieties fell under one sub-item of Item 16B and the third under another, so each class of goods had to be assessed separately at its applicable rate. Rule 173RB(2) was read to require duty liability to be worked out by applying each relevant rate to the average annual quantity or value of the goods to which that rate applied. Separate computation for each rate-bearing category was upheld and clubbing was rejected. en-us Tue, 01 Jan 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Aug 2014 12:33:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165722 For self-removal duty computation, plywood varieties attracting different central excise rates cannot be clubbed into one common calculation. The Government of India held that two varieties fell under one sub-item of Item 16B and the third under another, so each class of goods had to be assessed separately at its applicable rate. Rule 173RB(2) was read to require duty liability to be worked out by applying each relevant rate to the average annual quantity or value of the goods to which that rate applied. Separate computation for each rate-bearing category was upheld and clubbing was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 01 Jan 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165722