<?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>1990 (10) TMI 173 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80783</link>
    <description>A show cause notice for re-determination of assessable value was held valid even though it did not expressly cite Section 11A, because proceedings for short levy or non-levy fell within that provision and the statutory basis was otherwise clear. Printing and decorating plain glass bottles in a segregated unit was treated as manufacture because the process produced commercially distinct printed bottles with a different character and use. The segregated premises were regarded as part of the factory precincts, so the cost of printing formed part of the assessable value. On that reasoning, the demand was upheld and the appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Oct 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:05:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=117929" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (10) TMI 173 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80783</link>
      <description>A show cause notice for re-determination of assessable value was held valid even though it did not expressly cite Section 11A, because proceedings for short levy or non-levy fell within that provision and the statutory basis was otherwise clear. Printing and decorating plain glass bottles in a segregated unit was treated as manufacture because the process produced commercially distinct printed bottles with a different character and use. The segregated premises were regarded as part of the factory precincts, so the cost of printing formed part of the assessable value. On that reasoning, the demand was upheld and the appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Oct 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80783</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>