https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193356 Excise valuation of footwear under section 4 required reference to the nearest wholesale market and the wholesale cash price at the time of removal, but the article notes that where the true market price turns on disputed facts, the matter is not suitable for determination in writ jurisdiction under article 226. It also explains that short-levy limitation under the Central Excise and Salt Rules depended on whether the assessment was final or provisional: rule 10 applied to final assessments with a short limitation period, while rule 10B applied only where the conditions for provisional assessment were satisfied. The text further notes that assessments before 22 May 1958 were treated as final, while later assessments were provisional because the required bond had been executed. en-us Thu, 11 May 1967 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Jul 2017 17:11:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193356 Excise valuation of footwear under section 4 required reference to the nearest wholesale market and the wholesale cash price at the time of removal, but the article notes that where the true market price turns on disputed facts, the matter is not suitable for determination in writ jurisdiction under article 226. It also explains that short-levy limitation under the Central Excise and Salt Rules depended on whether the assessment was final or provisional: rule 10 applied to final assessments with a short limitation period, while rule 10B applied only where the conditions for provisional assessment were satisfied. The text further notes that assessments before 22 May 1958 were treated as final, while later assessments were provisional because the required bond had been executed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 11 May 1967 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193356