<?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>1999 (10) TMI 244 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92563</link>
    <description>Excise valuation in a controlled manufacturing arrangement turned on whether the processor was an independent job worker or merely an agent of the raw material supplier. Because the supplier controlled inputs, machinery, production scheduling, quality inspection and marketing, and the processor had no independent title or real autonomy, valuation on a cost of raw materials plus job charges basis was rejected. The discussion also notes that deductions already recognised in an earlier valuation order between the same parties applied to the relevant period, so those permissible deductions were allowed and the assessable value had to be redetermined accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2011 15:28:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=129624" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (10) TMI 244 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92563</link>
      <description>Excise valuation in a controlled manufacturing arrangement turned on whether the processor was an independent job worker or merely an agent of the raw material supplier. Because the supplier controlled inputs, machinery, production scheduling, quality inspection and marketing, and the processor had no independent title or real autonomy, valuation on a cost of raw materials plus job charges basis was rejected. The discussion also notes that deductions already recognised in an earlier valuation order between the same parties applied to the relevant period, so those permissible deductions were allowed and the assessable value had to be redetermined accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92563</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>