<?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>1987 (2) TMI 179 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72710</link>
    <description>Drawing, designing and technical specification charges recovered separately under consultancy invoices were treated as part of the machinery&#039;s manufacturing cost and, where not disclosed, the non-disclosure amounted to suppression supporting the extended limitation period. Other consultancy items such as project reports, plant layout, civil works, technical know-how for improving existing machinery, and staff training were treated as distinct services and excluded from assessable value. Erection and service charges incurred at the customer&#039;s premises were also excluded because they arose after removal from the factory gate and related to installation rather than manufacture. Quantification of the includible charges was left to the adjudicating authority on supporting records.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 May 2011 15:06:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=110989" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (2) TMI 179 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72710</link>
      <description>Drawing, designing and technical specification charges recovered separately under consultancy invoices were treated as part of the machinery&#039;s manufacturing cost and, where not disclosed, the non-disclosure amounted to suppression supporting the extended limitation period. Other consultancy items such as project reports, plant layout, civil works, technical know-how for improving existing machinery, and staff training were treated as distinct services and excluded from assessable value. Erection and service charges incurred at the customer&#039;s premises were also excluded because they arose after removal from the factory gate and related to installation rather than manufacture. Quantification of the includible charges was left to the adjudicating authority on supporting records.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72710</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>