<?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 (2) TMI 243 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93110</link>
    <description>Mere dilution of duty-paid herbicides, fungicides and related chemicals with water or filler did not amount to manufacture because no new product with a distinct name, character or use was shown; the later deeming amendments to Chapter 38 applied only to any clearances after the relevant amendment date, subject to verification. Insurance, forwarding and consultancy charges were not automatically includible in assessable value and depended on the actual sales and supply pattern, requiring factual verification. The demand was not time-barred because suppression could not be ruled out on the record. Interest and penalty depended on the period and the final duty outcome, so the matter required limited remand for redetermination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2011 14:27:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130171" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (2) TMI 243 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93110</link>
      <description>Mere dilution of duty-paid herbicides, fungicides and related chemicals with water or filler did not amount to manufacture because no new product with a distinct name, character or use was shown; the later deeming amendments to Chapter 38 applied only to any clearances after the relevant amendment date, subject to verification. Insurance, forwarding and consultancy charges were not automatically includible in assessable value and depended on the actual sales and supply pattern, requiring factual verification. The demand was not time-barred because suppression could not be ruled out on the record. Interest and penalty depended on the period and the final duty outcome, so the matter required limited remand for redetermination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93110</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>