<?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>1976 (10) TMI 37 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40537</link>
    <description>Short-levied excise duty could be recovered only within one year under the applicable Central Excise Rules, so any demand extending beyond that period was time-barred. For valuation under section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the wholesale cash price remained the relevant basis where different buyers were charged different prices pursuant to genuine trade concessions in arm&#039;s length transactions. On the stated facts, the concessional prices were commercially genuine, the limitation objection succeeded in part, and the valuation challenge failed, resulting in quashing of the impugned excise proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Oct 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 May 2010 12:32:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79068" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (10) TMI 37 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40537</link>
      <description>Short-levied excise duty could be recovered only within one year under the applicable Central Excise Rules, so any demand extending beyond that period was time-barred. For valuation under section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the wholesale cash price remained the relevant basis where different buyers were charged different prices pursuant to genuine trade concessions in arm&#039;s length transactions. On the stated facts, the concessional prices were commercially genuine, the limitation objection succeeded in part, and the valuation challenge failed, resulting in quashing of the impugned excise proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Oct 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40537</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>