<?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>1994 (4) TMI 168 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83285</link>
    <description>A manufacturer clearing aluminium collapsible tubes after changing its valuation basis without disclosure to the department had the value of plastic caps and the labour charges for fixing them included in assessable value, because the caps formed part of the finished marketable tubes and had earlier been valued as such. On Section 4 principles, the Tribunal majority treated both the cap value and fitting charges as part of the assessable value. The majority also held that non-disclosure of the revised practice amounted to suppression of facts, so the extended limitation period under Section 11A was rightly invoked and the duty demand sustained, with only the penalty reduced.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2011 13:11:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120430" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (4) TMI 168 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83285</link>
      <description>A manufacturer clearing aluminium collapsible tubes after changing its valuation basis without disclosure to the department had the value of plastic caps and the labour charges for fixing them included in assessable value, because the caps formed part of the finished marketable tubes and had earlier been valued as such. On Section 4 principles, the Tribunal majority treated both the cap value and fitting charges as part of the assessable value. The majority also held that non-disclosure of the revised practice amounted to suppression of facts, so the extended limitation period under Section 11A was rightly invoked and the duty demand sustained, with only the penalty reduced.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83285</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>