<?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>1997 (5) TMI 48 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44536</link>
    <description>Excise duty on goods cleared from the factory had to be assessed at the time of removal on the normal price ordinarily realised from independent customers, not on a lower price later obtained from a special bulk buyer. Because the goods were sent to outside magazines without being earmarked for any specific sale and no price list was filed for those removals, the later contingent sale could not reduce the duty already attracted on clearance. Provisional payment did not override the statutory basis of valuation at the point of removal. The excise authority was therefore justified in adopting the ordinary market price, and the assessee&#039;s contention failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Jul 2014 10:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=83065" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (5) TMI 48 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44536</link>
      <description>Excise duty on goods cleared from the factory had to be assessed at the time of removal on the normal price ordinarily realised from independent customers, not on a lower price later obtained from a special bulk buyer. Because the goods were sent to outside magazines without being earmarked for any specific sale and no price list was filed for those removals, the later contingent sale could not reduce the duty already attracted on clearance. Provisional payment did not override the statutory basis of valuation at the point of removal. The excise authority was therefore justified in adopting the ordinary market price, and the assessee&#039;s contention failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44536</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>