<?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>1975 (1) TMI 33 - HIGH COURT OF ASSAM AT GAUHATI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40683</link>
    <description>A concessional excise duty notification for phenol formaldehyde resin was upheld as a valid exercise of rule-making power, and the fact that the concession allegedly produced a heavier burden than the tariff rate did not, by itself, make it ultra vires. The assessee had voluntarily opted for the concession, which supported application of the notification. The Court also found no statutory requirement to assess duty only on solid content after excluding water content, so the department&#039;s gross-weight method was accepted. The challenge to both the notification and the assessment basis therefore failed, and the duty demand was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jan 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 May 2010 12:32:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79214" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (1) TMI 33 - HIGH COURT OF ASSAM AT GAUHATI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40683</link>
      <description>A concessional excise duty notification for phenol formaldehyde resin was upheld as a valid exercise of rule-making power, and the fact that the concession allegedly produced a heavier burden than the tariff rate did not, by itself, make it ultra vires. The assessee had voluntarily opted for the concession, which supported application of the notification. The Court also found no statutory requirement to assess duty only on solid content after excluding water content, so the department&#039;s gross-weight method was accepted. The challenge to both the notification and the assessment basis therefore failed, and the duty demand was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jan 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40683</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>