<?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>2007 (10) TMI 6 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2209</link>
    <description>For valuation under section 4(4)(d)(ii), only the actual turnover tax or duty payable under the applicable exemption or concessional notification can be excluded from assessable value; a blanket deduction at the higher tariff rate is impermissible. The Court treated the word &quot;payable&quot; as referring to the real tax liability at the time of removal, so the assessee had to apply the reduced rate where applicable and could not claim a notional 2% deduction. On limitation, once the Department was informed of the two categories of sales, suppression could not be alleged thereafter, and the demand beyond the normal period was time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2014 14:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=41581" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (10) TMI 6 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2209</link>
      <description>For valuation under section 4(4)(d)(ii), only the actual turnover tax or duty payable under the applicable exemption or concessional notification can be excluded from assessable value; a blanket deduction at the higher tariff rate is impermissible. The Court treated the word &quot;payable&quot; as referring to the real tax liability at the time of removal, so the assessee had to apply the reduced rate where applicable and could not claim a notional 2% deduction. On limitation, once the Department was informed of the two categories of sales, suppression could not be alleged thereafter, and the demand beyond the normal period was time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2209</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>