<?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 (7) TMI 299 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85551</link>
    <description>Where a beneficial departmental circular applies to duty-related valuation, the assessee may claim that relief and the differential between duty charged to buyers and duty actually payable under an exemption notification is not automatically includible in assessable value. On the facts noted, the appellants had availed partial exemption for specified raw materials, and the Tribunal followed its earlier ruling and the Board circular, as directed by the Supreme Court, to hold that the benefit extended to such cases. The assessable value was therefore not required to be revised upward, and the differential demand was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Aug 2011 17:23:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122618" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (7) TMI 299 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85551</link>
      <description>Where a beneficial departmental circular applies to duty-related valuation, the assessee may claim that relief and the differential between duty charged to buyers and duty actually payable under an exemption notification is not automatically includible in assessable value. On the facts noted, the appellants had availed partial exemption for specified raw materials, and the Tribunal followed its earlier ruling and the Board circular, as directed by the Supreme Court, to hold that the benefit extended to such cases. The assessable value was therefore not required to be revised upward, and the differential demand was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85551</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>