<?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 (12) TMI 361 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95305</link>
    <description>Design and development charges were held includible in the assessable value of the machine, and the only remand was for re-determination of quantum by reference to the number of machines and the necessary nexus between the designs and the goods manufactured. As no legal infirmity or impropriety was found in the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s approach, the Revenue&#039;s appeal was rejected and that order was confirmed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Dec 2011 11:23:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132364" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (12) TMI 361 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95305</link>
      <description>Design and development charges were held includible in the assessable value of the machine, and the only remand was for re-determination of quantum by reference to the number of machines and the necessary nexus between the designs and the goods manufactured. As no legal infirmity or impropriety was found in the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s approach, the Revenue&#039;s appeal was rejected and that order was confirmed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95305</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>