<?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>1981 (4) TMI 102 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41005</link>
    <description>An exemption notification granting relief from duty leviable on goods was construed to cover the entire composite excise levy, including regulatory duty and additional regulatory duty, because the notification referred to the duty chargeable on the goods as a whole. The benefit could not be confined to basic duty alone. The Court also held that the exemption had to be worked out by deducting the duty referable to the exempted value from the total duty liability, rather than by first altering the assessable value and then applying the exemption. That approach would distort the notification and duplicate the benefit. The assessees&#039; method was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 May 2010 16:54:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79536" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (4) TMI 102 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41005</link>
      <description>An exemption notification granting relief from duty leviable on goods was construed to cover the entire composite excise levy, including regulatory duty and additional regulatory duty, because the notification referred to the duty chargeable on the goods as a whole. The benefit could not be confined to basic duty alone. The Court also held that the exemption had to be worked out by deducting the duty referable to the exempted value from the total duty liability, rather than by first altering the assessable value and then applying the exemption. That approach would distort the notification and duplicate the benefit. The assessees&#039; method was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41005</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>