<?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>1984 (9) TMI 275 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167122</link>
    <description>For excise valuation under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, the duty deductible from normal price is the duty actually payable by the assessee after giving effect to an exemption notification; a reduced or partially exempt duty must therefore be reflected in the assessable value, and the revised computation was upheld. A retrospective explanation inserted by Section 47 of the Finance Act, 1982 was treated as clarificatory and did not displace the Act&#039;s separate recovery and limitation machinery, so Section 11A continued to govern recoveries. The challenge to the excise demands consequently failed, and the revised valuation and duty computation were sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Sep 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Dec 2014 14:39:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=370370" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (9) TMI 275 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167122</link>
      <description>For excise valuation under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, the duty deductible from normal price is the duty actually payable by the assessee after giving effect to an exemption notification; a reduced or partially exempt duty must therefore be reflected in the assessable value, and the revised computation was upheld. A retrospective explanation inserted by Section 47 of the Finance Act, 1982 was treated as clarificatory and did not displace the Act&#039;s separate recovery and limitation machinery, so Section 11A continued to govern recoveries. The challenge to the excise demands consequently failed, and the revised valuation and duty computation were sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Sep 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167122</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>