<?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>Excise exemption notifications conferred a substantive option on manufacturers to seek fixation of a special rate based on actual value addition, rather than proceed under the prescribed tariff-rate table. This option formed part of the exemption entitlement and was not merely a departmental concession. The filing deadline for a special-rate application operated as a procedural mechanism and did not bar the claim in the particular circumstances, because the need to seek fixation effectively arose only after the Supreme Court&#039;s final decision and an earlier agreed order contemplated merits-based consideration. Rejecting the application solely as time-barred would also conflict with constructive res judicata. The application required fresh determination on 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>Excise exemption notifications conferred a substantive option on manufacturers to seek fixation of a special rate based on actual value addition, rather than proceed under the prescribed tariff-rate table. This option formed part of the exemption entitlement and was not merely a departmental concession. The filing deadline for a special-rate application operated as a procedural mechanism and did not bar the claim in the particular circumstances, because the need to seek fixation effectively arose only after the Supreme Court&#039;s final decision and an earlier agreed order contemplated merits-based consideration. Rejecting the application solely as time-barred would also conflict with constructive res judicata. The application required fresh determination on 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>