https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40426 Item 26AA of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was construed by the Supreme Court as requiring duty to be computed by reference to the pig iron or steel ingots actually used in manufacture, rather than as a detached rate formula. The majority read the wording with the scheme of levy and exemption notifications, treating it as avoiding double taxation on raw material already duty-paid; the contrary dissent viewed the clause as supporting the assessee. On limitation, the demand was held to be within Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and the mistaken reference to Rule 9(2) was not treated as fatal because no prejudice was shown. en-us Fri, 18 Oct 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40426 Item 26AA of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was construed by the Supreme Court as requiring duty to be computed by reference to the pig iron or steel ingots actually used in manufacture, rather than as a detached rate formula. The majority read the wording with the scheme of levy and exemption notifications, treating it as avoiding double taxation on raw material already duty-paid; the contrary dissent viewed the clause as supporting the assessee. On limitation, the demand was held to be within Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and the mistaken reference to Rule 9(2) was not treated as fatal because no prejudice was shown. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 18 Oct 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40426