<?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>1986 (5) TMI 173 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72511</link>
    <description>Special checking charges and holding incidental charges recovered from industrial customers were includible in the assessable value because both arose before delivery at the factory gate and were integrally connected with manufacture of contract-specific special quality fabrics. The holding charges were treated as interest on working capital for stock retained in the factory, and the special checking charges as labour costs incurred to ensure delivery of the contracted quality. As they formed part of the total cost of manufacture and were not shown to be part of a lower normal price to other buyers, exclusion of the charges was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 May 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 11:19:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=110790" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (5) TMI 173 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72511</link>
      <description>Special checking charges and holding incidental charges recovered from industrial customers were includible in the assessable value because both arose before delivery at the factory gate and were integrally connected with manufacture of contract-specific special quality fabrics. The holding charges were treated as interest on working capital for stock retained in the factory, and the special checking charges as labour costs incurred to ensure delivery of the contracted quality. As they formed part of the total cost of manufacture and were not shown to be part of a lower normal price to other buyers, exclusion of the charges was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 May 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72511</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>