<?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 (10) TMI 216 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88039</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai upheld the decision of the Collector (Appeals) regarding the valuation of P.P. Caps in relation to the assessable value of containers under the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal rejected the Department&#039;s argument that the entire product, including the P.P. Caps, should be considered for valuation purposes, emphasizing that excise duty is levied on the manufacture of goods and not for maintaining registers. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Collector (Appeals) decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2011 16:21:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125105" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (10) TMI 216 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88039</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai upheld the decision of the Collector (Appeals) regarding the valuation of P.P. Caps in relation to the assessable value of containers under the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal rejected the Department&#039;s argument that the entire product, including the P.P. Caps, should be considered for valuation purposes, emphasizing that excise duty is levied on the manufacture of goods and not for maintaining registers. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Collector (Appeals) decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88039</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>