<?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>1991 (1) TMI 249 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80991</link>
    <description>A biscuit-manufacturing arrangement was treated as agency, not a pure job work contract, because the brand owner supplied materials, controlled specifications, quality, inspection, rejection, disposal of defective goods and scrap, and retained effective ownership and supervision throughout production. On that basis, the manufacture was not an arm&#039;s length factory-gate sale, so normal price under section 4 was not truly ascertainable. The assessable value was therefore to be determined by reference to the brand owner&#039;s market selling price under the valuation rules, rather than the job worker&#039;s cost plus conversion charges. The discussion distinguishes Ujagar Prints on the ground that it involved an independent job worker without comparable control by the brand owner.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2011 17:07:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118136" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (1) TMI 249 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80991</link>
      <description>A biscuit-manufacturing arrangement was treated as agency, not a pure job work contract, because the brand owner supplied materials, controlled specifications, quality, inspection, rejection, disposal of defective goods and scrap, and retained effective ownership and supervision throughout production. On that basis, the manufacture was not an arm&#039;s length factory-gate sale, so normal price under section 4 was not truly ascertainable. The assessable value was therefore to be determined by reference to the brand owner&#039;s market selling price under the valuation rules, rather than the job worker&#039;s cost plus conversion charges. The discussion distinguishes Ujagar Prints on the ground that it involved an independent job worker without comparable control by the brand owner.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80991</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>