<?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 (7) TMI 395 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94431</link>
    <description>Design and engineering charges connected with erection of equipment treated as immovable property were not includible in assessable value for excise duty because they related to creation of a non-excisable immovable structure rather than manufacture of movable goods. Manufactured goods cleared from the factory for use in setting up that equipment remained dutiable, and their assessable value had to be determined under the applicable valuation principles, with standard goods already duty-paid not attracting further levy. For specially fabricated items, cost of manufacture plus normal profit was the relevant basis, and the related design and engineering charges could be included to the extent they formed part of the equipment valuation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2011 14:24:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131491" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (7) TMI 395 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94431</link>
      <description>Design and engineering charges connected with erection of equipment treated as immovable property were not includible in assessable value for excise duty because they related to creation of a non-excisable immovable structure rather than manufacture of movable goods. Manufactured goods cleared from the factory for use in setting up that equipment remained dutiable, and their assessable value had to be determined under the applicable valuation principles, with standard goods already duty-paid not attracting further levy. For specially fabricated items, cost of manufacture plus normal profit was the relevant basis, and the related design and engineering charges could be included to the extent they formed part of the equipment valuation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94431</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>