<?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>1997 (1) TMI 243 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86537</link>
    <description>For exemption of wrapping paper under Notification No. 217/86, the exemption depended on whether packaging cost was included in the assessable value of the final product under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Tribunal found no reliable prima facie evidence that the wrapper cost had been included, and the valuation material suggested the wrapping paper weight was excluded; complete waiver of pre-deposit was therefore not justified, though partial dispensation was allowed. On limitation and absence of suppression, the Tribunal noted that the method of arriving at notional weight had not been disclosed contemporaneously and prima facie supported invocation of the longer limitation period, so this plea also did not support full waiver.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2011 14:51:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123604" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (1) TMI 243 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86537</link>
      <description>For exemption of wrapping paper under Notification No. 217/86, the exemption depended on whether packaging cost was included in the assessable value of the final product under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Tribunal found no reliable prima facie evidence that the wrapper cost had been included, and the valuation material suggested the wrapping paper weight was excluded; complete waiver of pre-deposit was therefore not justified, though partial dispensation was allowed. On limitation and absence of suppression, the Tribunal noted that the method of arriving at notional weight had not been disclosed contemporaneously and prima facie supported invocation of the longer limitation period, so this plea also did not support full waiver.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86537</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>