<?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>2000 (8) TMI 103 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46326</link>
    <description>Ex-factory pricing with excise duty shown separately means the duty component is recoverable at the rate applicable when the goods had already left the supplier&#039;s premises, even if the statutory rate is later reduced. A contractual clause allowing revision of statutory levies during the supply period does not retrospectively apply to goods dispatched before the rate change. The reduction from 18% to 16% was treated as prospective only, so the purchaser could not insist on the lower rate for goods dispatched on or before 28-2-1999. The reasoning also rejected any result that would leave the supplier bearing the higher duty burden while receiving the agreed contractual price, as that would amount to unjust enrichment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Jul 2010 11:47:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84852" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (8) TMI 103 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46326</link>
      <description>Ex-factory pricing with excise duty shown separately means the duty component is recoverable at the rate applicable when the goods had already left the supplier&#039;s premises, even if the statutory rate is later reduced. A contractual clause allowing revision of statutory levies during the supply period does not retrospectively apply to goods dispatched before the rate change. The reduction from 18% to 16% was treated as prospective only, so the purchaser could not insist on the lower rate for goods dispatched on or before 28-2-1999. The reasoning also rejected any result that would leave the supplier bearing the higher duty burden while receiving the agreed contractual price, as that would amount to unjust enrichment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46326</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>