<?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 (3) TMI 319 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88598</link>
    <description>Torn cartons sold as waste were held to fall outside Rule 57F(1), because that provision applies only when goods are removed in the same condition in which they were received and duty cannot be less than the credit taken. The cleared cartons were waste arising from processing of inputs, so Rule 57F(4) governed their treatment. Once accepted as waste, valuation based on the original purchase price of good cartons was unsustainable, especially where the contracted sale price of the waste was not disputed. The demand under Rule 57F(1) and the valuation adopted by the lower authorities were therefore set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2011 18:21:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125663" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (3) TMI 319 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88598</link>
      <description>Torn cartons sold as waste were held to fall outside Rule 57F(1), because that provision applies only when goods are removed in the same condition in which they were received and duty cannot be less than the credit taken. The cleared cartons were waste arising from processing of inputs, so Rule 57F(4) governed their treatment. Once accepted as waste, valuation based on the original purchase price of good cartons was unsustainable, especially where the contracted sale price of the waste was not disputed. The demand under Rule 57F(1) and the valuation adopted by the lower authorities were therefore set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88598</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>