<?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 174 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72512</link>
    <description>Packing cost is excludible from assessable value only where the manufacturer proves, by contract and evidence, that the packing is durable and returnable or that it is special secondary packing outside the normal wholesale mode of clearance. The assessee failed to show any enforceable return obligation, regular return practice, or that corrugated fibre containers and wooden boxes were not part of the ordinary packing used at the factory gate, so exclusion was denied. The pleas of promissory estoppel and double taxation also failed because the cited clarification was fact-specific and the valuation scheme under Section 4 did not support exclusion on that basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 May 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 11:22:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=110791" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (5) TMI 174 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72512</link>
      <description>Packing cost is excludible from assessable value only where the manufacturer proves, by contract and evidence, that the packing is durable and returnable or that it is special secondary packing outside the normal wholesale mode of clearance. The assessee failed to show any enforceable return obligation, regular return practice, or that corrugated fibre containers and wooden boxes were not part of the ordinary packing used at the factory gate, so exclusion was denied. The pleas of promissory estoppel and double taxation also failed because the cited clarification was fact-specific and the valuation scheme under Section 4 did not support exclusion on that basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 May 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72512</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>