<?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 (11) TMI 309 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91296</link>
    <description>Notification No. 241/86-C.E. on motor vehicles body-built on duty-paid chassis was applied to allow exclusion not only of the chassis value but also of the duty relatable to that value when computing the net excise liability on the finished ambulance. The body builders had used duty-paid chassis supplied by the customer and had not taken Modvat credit under the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In that statutory setting, the notification was read as granting relief equivalent to the excise duty referable to the chassis used in the vehicle, and the Board&#039;s clarification was treated as consistent with that view. The appellate valuation was upheld and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2011 11:30:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128358" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (11) TMI 309 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91296</link>
      <description>Notification No. 241/86-C.E. on motor vehicles body-built on duty-paid chassis was applied to allow exclusion not only of the chassis value but also of the duty relatable to that value when computing the net excise liability on the finished ambulance. The body builders had used duty-paid chassis supplied by the customer and had not taken Modvat credit under the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In that statutory setting, the notification was read as granting relief equivalent to the excise duty referable to the chassis used in the vehicle, and the Board&#039;s clarification was treated as consistent with that view. The appellate valuation was upheld and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91296</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>