<?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>1980 (4) TMI 119 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40872</link>
    <description>Excise duty on a duty-paid electric motor fitted to a power-driven pumping set could not be included in the assessable value of the pumping set under section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, because the motor remained a component of the composite goods and did not acquire a separate commercial identity. The exemption notification for power-driven pumps also indicated that duty already paid on the motor was not to be treated as part of the duty burden on the pump. The High Court further declined to reject the petition on the ground of alternate revisional remedy. The excise demands were quashed and refund was directed for amounts recovered under the short-levy orders.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 May 2010 13:53:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79403" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (4) TMI 119 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40872</link>
      <description>Excise duty on a duty-paid electric motor fitted to a power-driven pumping set could not be included in the assessable value of the pumping set under section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, because the motor remained a component of the composite goods and did not acquire a separate commercial identity. The exemption notification for power-driven pumps also indicated that duty already paid on the motor was not to be treated as part of the duty burden on the pump. The High Court further declined to reject the petition on the ground of alternate revisional remedy. The excise demands were quashed and refund was directed for amounts recovered under the short-levy orders.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40872</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>