<?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 (9) TMI 465 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94925</link>
    <description>At the pre-deposit stage, inclusion of notional interest on customer advances, compensation for short lifting, and notional interest on the cost of land in the assessable value was not prima facie justified. The record showed no material that the customer advance had depressed the price of the gases, and the price remained unchanged after the advance was exhausted. Compensation for failure to lift the contracted quantity was treated as separate from the price of the excisable goods, while the alleged benefit from rent-free use of land was considered too small to warrant the demanded deposit. Duty and penalty were waived for pre-deposit and recovery was stayed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Dec 2011 18:06:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131984" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (9) TMI 465 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94925</link>
      <description>At the pre-deposit stage, inclusion of notional interest on customer advances, compensation for short lifting, and notional interest on the cost of land in the assessable value was not prima facie justified. The record showed no material that the customer advance had depressed the price of the gases, and the price remained unchanged after the advance was exhausted. Compensation for failure to lift the contracted quantity was treated as separate from the price of the excisable goods, while the alleged benefit from rent-free use of land was considered too small to warrant the demanded deposit. Duty and penalty were waived for pre-deposit and recovery was stayed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94925</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>