<?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>2000 (1) TMI 203 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93102</link>
    <description>Processed fabrics cleared on job work basis were said to be assessable under the settled Ujagar Prints formula, by taking grey-cloth value plus job-work charges and manufacturing profit and expenses, and that method was not displaced merely because the units were described as related persons, intermediaries or dummy concerns. The duty computation was also questioned because of alleged errors in voluminous calculation sheets and the absence of a fair opportunity to verify them, requiring fresh examination where verification was incomplete. Gross realisations were to be treated as cum-duty prices, with the duty element deducted from assessable value, and the penalty deferral based on pending litigation was considered unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2011 13:28:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130163" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (1) TMI 203 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93102</link>
      <description>Processed fabrics cleared on job work basis were said to be assessable under the settled Ujagar Prints formula, by taking grey-cloth value plus job-work charges and manufacturing profit and expenses, and that method was not displaced merely because the units were described as related persons, intermediaries or dummy concerns. The duty computation was also questioned because of alleged errors in voluminous calculation sheets and the absence of a fair opportunity to verify them, requiring fresh examination where verification was incomplete. Gross realisations were to be treated as cum-duty prices, with the duty element deducted from assessable value, and the penalty deferral based on pending litigation was considered unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93102</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>