<?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>1998 (2) TMI 207 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88168</link>
    <description>Valuation under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 required the assessable value to include both the cost of metal materials used in manufacture and the grooving charges. Excluding the material cost from assessable value was not sustainable because the value had to reflect the full manufacturing input and processing charges. On that basis, the exclusion made by the Collector (Appeals) could not stand, and the original demand order was restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Sep 2011 15:38:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125234" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (2) TMI 207 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88168</link>
      <description>Valuation under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 required the assessable value to include both the cost of metal materials used in manufacture and the grooving charges. Excluding the material cost from assessable value was not sustainable because the value had to reflect the full manufacturing input and processing charges. On that basis, the exclusion made by the Collector (Appeals) could not stand, and the original demand order was restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88168</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>