<?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>1988 (7) TMI 184 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73798</link>
    <description>Maintenance and service charges for durable and returnable containers were treated as part of the full cost of packing under Section 4(4)(d)(i) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Because the containers were accepted as durable and returnable and their initial cost was already deductible from assessable value, the deductible packing cost was held to include both the container cost and subsequent maintenance and repair expenditure. The record also showed that the department itself had treated these charges as packing cost, and there was no basis to say the packing cost was inflated to reduce assessable value. The departmental appeal therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Jun 2011 16:27:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=112077" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (7) TMI 184 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73798</link>
      <description>Maintenance and service charges for durable and returnable containers were treated as part of the full cost of packing under Section 4(4)(d)(i) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Because the containers were accepted as durable and returnable and their initial cost was already deductible from assessable value, the deductible packing cost was held to include both the container cost and subsequent maintenance and repair expenditure. The record also showed that the department itself had treated these charges as packing cost, and there was no basis to say the packing cost was inflated to reduce assessable value. The departmental appeal therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73798</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>