<?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 (4) TMI 148 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86670</link>
    <description>Goods manufactured but not entered in statutory records were treated as non-accountal and liable to confiscation under the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and the challenge to confiscation failed. The value of bulbs fitted in headlights before clearance was includible in assessable value because the headlights were cleared as complete goods and the bulbs formed an integral part of the final product; the related duty demand was sustained. No statutory authority was shown for appropriating credit after reversal of an allegedly irregular credit entry, so that direction was set aside. The demand on bulb value was not time-barred because the non-declaration and claimed free supply were treated as suppression and wilful misstatement, making the extended period available.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2011 13:25:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123737" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (4) TMI 148 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86670</link>
      <description>Goods manufactured but not entered in statutory records were treated as non-accountal and liable to confiscation under the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and the challenge to confiscation failed. The value of bulbs fitted in headlights before clearance was includible in assessable value because the headlights were cleared as complete goods and the bulbs formed an integral part of the final product; the related duty demand was sustained. No statutory authority was shown for appropriating credit after reversal of an allegedly irregular credit entry, so that direction was set aside. The demand on bulb value was not time-barred because the non-declaration and claimed free supply were treated as suppression and wilful misstatement, making the extended period available.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86670</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>