<?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 (3) TMI 276 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93434</link>
    <description>In job-work manufacture of video cassettes, assessable value was confined to the cost of raw material, the job worker&#039;s value addition and profit, and did not include the copyright value belonging to the master cassette owner because no copyright rights were acquired in manufacture. The exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was unavailable where another person&#039;s brand name appeared on the cassettes, with &quot;affix&quot; construed broadly to cover brand identification on the product itself. On merits, the Revenue succeeded on the exemption issue, but the demand failed because the extended period was inapplicable and the claim was time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2011 13:00:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130495" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (3) TMI 276 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93434</link>
      <description>In job-work manufacture of video cassettes, assessable value was confined to the cost of raw material, the job worker&#039;s value addition and profit, and did not include the copyright value belonging to the master cassette owner because no copyright rights were acquired in manufacture. The exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was unavailable where another person&#039;s brand name appeared on the cassettes, with &quot;affix&quot; construed broadly to cover brand identification on the product itself. On merits, the Revenue succeeded on the exemption issue, but the demand failed because the extended period was inapplicable and the claim was time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93434</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>