<?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 (3) TMI 286 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81806</link>
    <description>Aluminium collapsible tubes fitted with plastic caps were treated as the same container for duty purposes, while the plastic cap was recognised as a separate item for levy under Tariff Item 27. On that reasoning, the demand based on the premise that duty had been paid only on the tubes and not on the tubes with caps could not be sustained. The assessable value was not enlarged by combining the cap with the tube for the impugned demand, and the assessee succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2011 10:29:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118951" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (3) TMI 286 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81806</link>
      <description>Aluminium collapsible tubes fitted with plastic caps were treated as the same container for duty purposes, while the plastic cap was recognised as a separate item for levy under Tariff Item 27. On that reasoning, the demand based on the premise that duty had been paid only on the tubes and not on the tubes with caps could not be sustained. The assessable value was not enlarged by combining the cap with the tube for the impugned demand, and the assessee succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81806</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>