<?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>1993 (3) TMI 116 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43595</link>
    <description>For excise valuation, deductions were allowed only where the assessee proved the basis and contemporaneous support for the claim: trade discounts, interest on bank facilities, and marketing and distribution expenses failed for want of adequate particulars and legal admissibility, while cash discount supported by invoices and credit notes was allowed to the extent of 5%. A refund claim that had earlier been directed to be decided on merits could not be rejected merely as time-barred without substantive adjudication, so the limitation-based refusal was set aside and the claims were remanded for decision on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Mar 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Jun 2010 10:07:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82124" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (3) TMI 116 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43595</link>
      <description>For excise valuation, deductions were allowed only where the assessee proved the basis and contemporaneous support for the claim: trade discounts, interest on bank facilities, and marketing and distribution expenses failed for want of adequate particulars and legal admissibility, while cash discount supported by invoices and credit notes was allowed to the extent of 5%. A refund claim that had earlier been directed to be decided on merits could not be rejected merely as time-barred without substantive adjudication, so the limitation-based refusal was set aside and the claims were remanded for decision on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Mar 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43595</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>