<?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>1987 (7) TMI 91 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41953</link>
    <description>Trade discount was required to be excluded from assessable value under the Explanation to Section 4 for excise duty purposes. Duty paid on a valuation that wrongly included trade discount was therefore paid under a mistake of law and without authority of law. On that basis, the refund claim for excess duty was maintainable and was not barred by the limitation under Rule 11.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Jun 2010 11:59:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80482" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (7) TMI 91 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41953</link>
      <description>Trade discount was required to be excluded from assessable value under the Explanation to Section 4 for excise duty purposes. Duty paid on a valuation that wrongly included trade discount was therefore paid under a mistake of law and without authority of law. On that basis, the refund claim for excess duty was maintainable and was not barred by the limitation under Rule 11.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41953</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>