https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190842 Under the Bombay Prohibition Act, revised supervision charges were recoverable where the statutory liability to bear supervisory staff cost already existed; the quarterly licence payment was only an administrative mode of advance collection, so a later increase in staff cost could be demanded and promissory estoppel did not apply. The court also held that excise or countervailing duty attached when the taxable event occurred on import or other chargeable act, and deferred collection at the warehouse stage did not extinguish the liability. Accordingly, duty remained recoverable on breakages and shortages in transit or in a bonded warehouse before sale, and the challenges to both demands failed. en-us Tue, 08 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Mar 2017 17:28:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190842 Under the Bombay Prohibition Act, revised supervision charges were recoverable where the statutory liability to bear supervisory staff cost already existed; the quarterly licence payment was only an administrative mode of advance collection, so a later increase in staff cost could be demanded and promissory estoppel did not apply. The court also held that excise or countervailing duty attached when the taxable event occurred on import or other chargeable act, and deferred collection at the warehouse stage did not extinguish the liability. Accordingly, duty remained recoverable on breakages and shortages in transit or in a bonded warehouse before sale, and the challenges to both demands failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 08 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190842