<?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 282 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167190</link>
    <description>Excise duty on fully manufactured, marketable lubricating greases was chargeable at the stage of removal from the manufacturer&#039;s premises, because manufacture was complete at factory gate and later distribution did not shift the point of levy. The assessable value was the Government-fixed sale price applicable to the goods as cleared from the factory, not any subsequent trading or post-handling price. Repacking duty-paid goods into smaller containers did not amount to a fresh manufacture on these facts, as no new and distinct article emerged, so no second levy of duty was attracted. The demand for differential duty therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 22 Sep 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Dec 2014 18:42:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=370731" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (9) TMI 282 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167190</link>
      <description>Excise duty on fully manufactured, marketable lubricating greases was chargeable at the stage of removal from the manufacturer&#039;s premises, because manufacture was complete at factory gate and later distribution did not shift the point of levy. The assessable value was the Government-fixed sale price applicable to the goods as cleared from the factory, not any subsequent trading or post-handling price. Repacking duty-paid goods into smaller containers did not amount to a fresh manufacture on these facts, as no new and distinct article emerged, so no second levy of duty was attracted. The demand for differential duty therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 22 Sep 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167190</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>