<?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 (5) TMI 38 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40875</link>
    <description>Excise duty under Section 4(a) had to be assessed on the manufacturer&#039;s factory-gate wholesale cash price, confined to manufacturing cost and manufacturing profit, and not on the customer-companies&#039; resale prices. Post-manufacturing elements such as selling expenses, selling profit, freight and octroi were excluded from the assessable value, and the customer-companies were not shown to be related or favoured buyers so as to displace the ordinary wholesale price basis. Assessments made on the wrong valuation basis were vitiated by error of law and could not stand merely because earlier returns or assessments had been filed; the impugned assessments were quashed to that extent and reassessment with consequential refund was directed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 May 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 May 2010 14:10:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79406" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (5) TMI 38 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40875</link>
      <description>Excise duty under Section 4(a) had to be assessed on the manufacturer&#039;s factory-gate wholesale cash price, confined to manufacturing cost and manufacturing profit, and not on the customer-companies&#039; resale prices. Post-manufacturing elements such as selling expenses, selling profit, freight and octroi were excluded from the assessable value, and the customer-companies were not shown to be related or favoured buyers so as to displace the ordinary wholesale price basis. Assessments made on the wrong valuation basis were vitiated by error of law and could not stand merely because earlier returns or assessments had been filed; the impugned assessments were quashed to that extent and reassessment with consequential refund was directed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 May 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40875</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>