<?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 (5) TMI 228 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93474</link>
    <description>In central excise valuation, the value of pig iron supplied free of cost by the buyer was includible in the assessable value of the manufactured goods, because free supply forming part of the final product remained relevant to valuation. Non-disclosure of such free supplies and a declaration that no additional consideration flowed from the buyer constituted suppression of material facts, so the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A applied and the demand was not time-barred. Penalty under Section 11AC and the interest demand were nevertheless unsustainable for the period in dispute, as the relevant provisions were not in force, while the separate Rule 173Q penalty was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2011 16:21:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130535" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (5) TMI 228 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93474</link>
      <description>In central excise valuation, the value of pig iron supplied free of cost by the buyer was includible in the assessable value of the manufactured goods, because free supply forming part of the final product remained relevant to valuation. Non-disclosure of such free supplies and a declaration that no additional consideration flowed from the buyer constituted suppression of material facts, so the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A applied and the demand was not time-barred. Penalty under Section 11AC and the interest demand were nevertheless unsustainable for the period in dispute, as the relevant provisions were not in force, while the separate Rule 173Q penalty was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93474</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>