<?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 279 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81115</link>
    <description>Excise valuation of electric poles turned on whether they were marketable goods, whether profit could be added to assessable value, and whether the profit element could be raised from 2% to 10%. The Tribunal treated the poles as excisable goods, applying its earlier view that articles capable of being brought to market are goods. It also accepted that a margin of profit may be included in assessable value under the valuation rules. However, the enhancement to 10% was rejected because the department showed no factual basis for a higher allowance, and the 2% figure was retained. The earlier electricity board precedent was found inapplicable on different facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Jun 2011 15:21:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118260" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (1) TMI 279 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81115</link>
      <description>Excise valuation of electric poles turned on whether they were marketable goods, whether profit could be added to assessable value, and whether the profit element could be raised from 2% to 10%. The Tribunal treated the poles as excisable goods, applying its earlier view that articles capable of being brought to market are goods. It also accepted that a margin of profit may be included in assessable value under the valuation rules. However, the enhancement to 10% was rejected because the department showed no factual basis for a higher allowance, and the 2% figure was retained. The earlier electricity board precedent was found inapplicable on different facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81115</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>