<?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>1985 (11) TMI 63 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41891</link>
    <description>Alternative statutory remedy did not bar writ interference where the impugned reassessment orders disclosed a patent infirmity, and the High Court exercised writ jurisdiction despite the Revenue&#039;s objection. Reassessment of assessable value for sulphuric acid and oleum was quashed because the authority relied mainly on higher values of the same goods at another factory without meeting the assessee&#039;s specific objections or showing that all relevant valuation factors had been considered; the valuation issues were therefore remitted for fresh decision in accordance with law, including proper consideration of the applicable valuation rule for oleum.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Nov 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Jun 2010 17:28:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80420" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (11) TMI 63 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41891</link>
      <description>Alternative statutory remedy did not bar writ interference where the impugned reassessment orders disclosed a patent infirmity, and the High Court exercised writ jurisdiction despite the Revenue&#039;s objection. Reassessment of assessable value for sulphuric acid and oleum was quashed because the authority relied mainly on higher values of the same goods at another factory without meeting the assessee&#039;s specific objections or showing that all relevant valuation factors had been considered; the valuation issues were therefore remitted for fresh decision in accordance with law, including proper consideration of the applicable valuation rule for oleum.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Nov 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41891</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>