<?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 133 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41542</link>
    <description>The Court dismissed the petition challenging the inclusion of packing charges in the assessable value for excise duty. It upheld the orders of the Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector, finding that the petitioner always sold bottles with packing included in the wholesale price. The Court clarified that if packing charges are separately shown and charged, they should not be included in the assessable value. However, if the wholesale price includes packing, it forms part of the assessable value. The petitioner&#039;s claim for a refund of excess excise duty was denied as they failed to prove selling bottles at a lower price without packing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Jun 2010 12:26:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80072" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (4) TMI 133 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41542</link>
      <description>The Court dismissed the petition challenging the inclusion of packing charges in the assessable value for excise duty. It upheld the orders of the Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector, finding that the petitioner always sold bottles with packing included in the wholesale price. The Court clarified that if packing charges are separately shown and charged, they should not be included in the assessable value. However, if the wholesale price includes packing, it forms part of the assessable value. The petitioner&#039;s claim for a refund of excess excise duty was denied as they failed to prove selling bottles at a lower price without packing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41542</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>