<?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 502 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95182</link>
    <description>Free customer-supplied drawings were held includible in the assessable value where they were essential to manufacture and formed part of the indirect consideration received by the manufacturer. The contract price was therefore not treated as the sole consideration, making the special valuation rule applicable rather than the normal-price concept. However, because the drawings related to a broader project and only one unit had been manufactured, only a proportionate part of the drawing cost could be added to the value of the goods actually cleared. In the same factual setting, personal penalty was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh computation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2011 15:22:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132241" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (9) TMI 502 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95182</link>
      <description>Free customer-supplied drawings were held includible in the assessable value where they were essential to manufacture and formed part of the indirect consideration received by the manufacturer. The contract price was therefore not treated as the sole consideration, making the special valuation rule applicable rather than the normal-price concept. However, because the drawings related to a broader project and only one unit had been manufactured, only a proportionate part of the drawing cost could be added to the value of the goods actually cleared. In the same factual setting, personal penalty was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh computation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95182</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>