<?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 222 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88329</link>
    <description>Under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975, assessable value cannot be confined to grooving or processing charges where the transaction is not a true job-work arrangement. Because the record showed no basis for excluding the cost of the supplied metal materials, the appellate valuation limiting value to grooving charges alone was unsustainable. The valuation order was set aside and the original demand restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Sep 2011 18:38:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125394" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (2) TMI 222 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88329</link>
      <description>Under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975, assessable value cannot be confined to grooving or processing charges where the transaction is not a true job-work arrangement. Because the record showed no basis for excluding the cost of the supplied metal materials, the appellate valuation limiting value to grooving charges alone was unsustainable. The valuation order was set aside and the original demand restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88329</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>