<?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>2021 (9) TMI 1046 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412701</link>
    <description>An excise exemption notification was read as giving manufacturers a substantive option to seek fixation of a special rate based on actual value addition, rather than being confined to the tariff rate. The time stipulation for filing such an application was treated as procedural, not an absolute bar, in the peculiar facts where the occasion to seek fixation had effectively arisen only later and the matter had earlier been understood to require consideration on merits. The article also notes that rejection solely on limitation would be inconsistent with constructive res judicata. The claim was therefore directed to be reconsidered on its merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Sep 2021 16:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=656749" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (9) TMI 1046 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412701</link>
      <description>An excise exemption notification was read as giving manufacturers a substantive option to seek fixation of a special rate based on actual value addition, rather than being confined to the tariff rate. The time stipulation for filing such an application was treated as procedural, not an absolute bar, in the peculiar facts where the occasion to seek fixation had effectively arisen only later and the matter had earlier been understood to require consideration on merits. The article also notes that rejection solely on limitation would be inconsistent with constructive res judicata. The claim was therefore directed to be reconsidered on its merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412701</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>