<?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 (8) TMI 576 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95724</link>
    <description>Broken glazed tiles were treated as non-excisable on the Tribunal&#039;s earlier view in the assessee&#039;s own case, so the duty demand failed. Notional interest on customer advances could not be added to assessable value without proof that the advances depressed the price, so that demand also failed. Separate regional price lists were permissible, and the highest regional price could not be imposed across clearances. For pre-1996 valuation, the factory gate price governed where applicable, so depot prices and C &amp; F agent prices could not replace it on these facts. Duty on machinery manufactured for captive consumption was upheld because the audit material supported manufacture, and the non-disclosure in returns undermined the defence of no suppression.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:28:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132783" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (8) TMI 576 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95724</link>
      <description>Broken glazed tiles were treated as non-excisable on the Tribunal&#039;s earlier view in the assessee&#039;s own case, so the duty demand failed. Notional interest on customer advances could not be added to assessable value without proof that the advances depressed the price, so that demand also failed. Separate regional price lists were permissible, and the highest regional price could not be imposed across clearances. For pre-1996 valuation, the factory gate price governed where applicable, so depot prices and C &amp; F agent prices could not replace it on these facts. Duty on machinery manufactured for captive consumption was upheld because the audit material supported manufacture, and the non-disclosure in returns undermined the defence of no suppression.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95724</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>