<?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>1985 (3) TMI 261 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167267</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, aligning with the Department&#039;s position that duty on wrapping paper used for other paper varieties should be collected as it becomes part of the other paper&#039;s assessable value, based on the Supreme Court judgment and legal provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Tribunal rejected the argument that duty was being recovered twice on the same wrapping paper, emphasizing that the duty is not levied again but included in the assessable value of the goods.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Mar 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Dec 2014 12:09:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=370968" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (3) TMI 261 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167267</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, aligning with the Department&#039;s position that duty on wrapping paper used for other paper varieties should be collected as it becomes part of the other paper&#039;s assessable value, based on the Supreme Court judgment and legal provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Tribunal rejected the argument that duty was being recovered twice on the same wrapping paper, emphasizing that the duty is not levied again but included in the assessable value of the goods.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Mar 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167267</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>