<?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 (7) TMI 229 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89320</link>
    <description>Training and programming charges were treated as post-manufacturing expenses and excluded from assessable value because no evidence established a dummy arrangement, flow-back of receipts, mutuality of interest, or a nexus with manufacturing value. The undervaluation demand consequently failed. Clandestine removal was sustained on cumulative corroborative evidence, including statements of the managing partner, dealers and buyers, serial-number irregularities, admitted removals, and inadequate evidence regarding returned defective units. The duty demand on clandestine removals remained payable, with a consequential reduction in penalty and redemption fine.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2011 12:34:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126382" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (7) TMI 229 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89320</link>
      <description>Training and programming charges were treated as post-manufacturing expenses and excluded from assessable value because no evidence established a dummy arrangement, flow-back of receipts, mutuality of interest, or a nexus with manufacturing value. The undervaluation demand consequently failed. Clandestine removal was sustained on cumulative corroborative evidence, including statements of the managing partner, dealers and buyers, serial-number irregularities, admitted removals, and inadequate evidence regarding returned defective units. The duty demand on clandestine removals remained payable, with a consequential reduction in penalty and redemption fine.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89320</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>