<?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 (11) TMI 340 - COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167496</link>
    <description>Duty could not be demanded on samples drawn at the loom stage for internal testing where the samples were taken before the relevant excise accounting point, a sample register was maintained, officers regularly verified the records, and the leftover material was returned for re-processing. In the absence of any trade notice or instruction requiring such samples to be entered in the prescribed excise records, there was no basis for duty demand. The demand was also held time-barred because it was raised much later for the period in question and had not been effectively confirmed earlier. Refund was therefore due to the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Dec 2014 14:54:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=371865" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (11) TMI 340 - COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167496</link>
      <description>Duty could not be demanded on samples drawn at the loom stage for internal testing where the samples were taken before the relevant excise accounting point, a sample register was maintained, officers regularly verified the records, and the leftover material was returned for re-processing. In the absence of any trade notice or instruction requiring such samples to be entered in the prescribed excise records, there was no basis for duty demand. The demand was also held time-barred because it was raised much later for the period in question and had not been effectively confirmed earlier. Refund was therefore due to the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167496</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>