<?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 (11) TMI 290 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93062</link>
    <description>Value of artwork and printing screen frames used in manufacturing labels was treated as includible in assessable value because items that specifically facilitate production and contribute to the finished product form part of valuation. A chartered accountant&#039;s certificate and isolated invoices were insufficient to displace the department&#039;s case, as the supporting data was unclear and reliable particulars had not been furnished. The extended-period demand was not barred because earlier correspondence concerned a different issue, namely whether printing frames themselves amounted to excisable manufacture, and did not show departmental knowledge of the later valuation dispute. The older period nevertheless required partial reworking of the quantified demand for 1987-88.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2011 10:47:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130123" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (11) TMI 290 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93062</link>
      <description>Value of artwork and printing screen frames used in manufacturing labels was treated as includible in assessable value because items that specifically facilitate production and contribute to the finished product form part of valuation. A chartered accountant&#039;s certificate and isolated invoices were insufficient to displace the department&#039;s case, as the supporting data was unclear and reliable particulars had not been furnished. The extended-period demand was not barred because earlier correspondence concerned a different issue, namely whether printing frames themselves amounted to excisable manufacture, and did not show departmental knowledge of the later valuation dispute. The older period nevertheless required partial reworking of the quantified demand for 1987-88.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93062</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>