<?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 179 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80864</link>
    <description>Cylinder handling charges for unloading, stacking and loading within the factory were treated as part of the assessable value of oxygen gas for central excise because the charges were incurred before removal and were connected with packing and dispatch, while post-clearance delivery or collection charges would be excluded. The longer limitation period was also upheld because the price list disclosed only the ex-factory price and did not reveal that handling charges were separately recovered; the omission from the filed agreement and the discovery through debit notes and private records amounted to suppression of material facts. The demand and penalty were sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Oct 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Jun 2011 18:11:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118009" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (10) TMI 179 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80864</link>
      <description>Cylinder handling charges for unloading, stacking and loading within the factory were treated as part of the assessable value of oxygen gas for central excise because the charges were incurred before removal and were connected with packing and dispatch, while post-clearance delivery or collection charges would be excluded. The longer limitation period was also upheld because the price list disclosed only the ex-factory price and did not reveal that handling charges were separately recovered; the omission from the filed agreement and the discovery through debit notes and private records amounted to suppression of material facts. The demand and penalty were sustained.</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=80864</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>