<?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>1996 (6) TMI 148 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85363</link>
    <description>Servicing and filling charges incurred to place sulphuric acid in durable containers and make it ready for sale and delivery were treated as part of the process of bringing the goods to market, not as post-manufacturing expenses. As a result, those charges were includible in the assessable value for excise duty. The refund claim was therefore rejected because the charges formed part of the value on which duty was chargeable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Aug 2011 15:45:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122430" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (6) TMI 148 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85363</link>
      <description>Servicing and filling charges incurred to place sulphuric acid in durable containers and make it ready for sale and delivery were treated as part of the process of bringing the goods to market, not as post-manufacturing expenses. As a result, those charges were includible in the assessable value for excise duty. The refund claim was therefore rejected because the charges formed part of the value on which duty was chargeable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85363</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>