<?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>1995 (10) TMI 132 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84847</link>
    <description>MODVAT credit on bottles and crates used in manufacturing aerated waters depended on a fuller factual inquiry into whether packing-material cost had already been included in the assessable value or otherwise taken into account for duty purposes. The record also referred to breakages, depreciation and repair charges, but those aspects had not been fully examined, and the order had proceeded on assumptions about buyer deposits and recovery of packing-material cost. Eligibility under Rule 57A could not be determined satisfactorily on the existing material. The order was set aside and the matter was remanded for reconsideration after giving the appellants a reasonable opportunity to produce evidence and be heard.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sun, 08 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Aug 2011 11:25:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121914" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (10) TMI 132 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84847</link>
      <description>MODVAT credit on bottles and crates used in manufacturing aerated waters depended on a fuller factual inquiry into whether packing-material cost had already been included in the assessable value or otherwise taken into account for duty purposes. The record also referred to breakages, depreciation and repair charges, but those aspects had not been fully examined, and the order had proceeded on assumptions about buyer deposits and recovery of packing-material cost. Eligibility under Rule 57A could not be determined satisfactorily on the existing material. The order was set aside and the matter was remanded for reconsideration after giving the appellants a reasonable opportunity to produce evidence and be heard.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Sun, 08 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84847</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>