<?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 337 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88616</link>
    <description>Design, development and processing charges recovered through debit notes were treated as potentially includible in assessable value where they had a nexus with manufacture and marketability, but the demand on this component required redetermination on the existing record. Duty on machined rings was upheld because inspection records, private records and the rejected duplication explanation established non-accountal in RG-1. Confiscation of scrap rings for non-accountal was also upheld, since statutory accountal was required, but the redemption fine and penalty were reduced in light of mitigating circumstances and prevailing practice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 28 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2011 12:03:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125681" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (3) TMI 337 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88616</link>
      <description>Design, development and processing charges recovered through debit notes were treated as potentially includible in assessable value where they had a nexus with manufacture and marketability, but the demand on this component required redetermination on the existing record. Duty on machined rings was upheld because inspection records, private records and the rejected duplication explanation established non-accountal in RG-1. Confiscation of scrap rings for non-accountal was also upheld, since statutory accountal was required, but the redemption fine and penalty were reduced in light of mitigating circumstances and prevailing practice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 28 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88616</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>