<?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 (12) TMI 283 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87926</link>
    <description>Separately recovered amounts for packing charges, wooden crates, loading and unloading, and transport expenses were treated as includible in assessable value because the assessee failed to establish a reliable apportionment of excludible post-removal transport charges. Actual transport charges after clearance from the factory gate were recognised as excludible in principle, but the consolidated recoveries and lack of contemporaneous evidence prevented exclusion of the full amount. Non-disclosure of these recoveries from the assessment records and invoices supported suppression, so the extended period of limitation and penalty were upheld, though the penalty was reduced on the facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:16:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124992" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (12) TMI 283 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87926</link>
      <description>Separately recovered amounts for packing charges, wooden crates, loading and unloading, and transport expenses were treated as includible in assessable value because the assessee failed to establish a reliable apportionment of excludible post-removal transport charges. Actual transport charges after clearance from the factory gate were recognised as excludible in principle, but the consolidated recoveries and lack of contemporaneous evidence prevented exclusion of the full amount. Non-disclosure of these recoveries from the assessment records and invoices supported suppression, so the extended period of limitation and penalty were upheld, though the penalty was reduced on the facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87926</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>