<?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 (11) TMI 645 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96280</link>
    <description>Donations made out of profit left after meeting production costs and sale realisations remained part of the manufacturer&#039;s profit for excise valuation under Rule 6(b)(ii), because post-profit application did not alter the character of the amount. Unexplained differences in bad debts were also treated as includible in the profit computation. The remand on miscellaneous income was sustained because its source, including whether it arose from manufacture or some other activity, required factual verification. The inclusion of the disputed amounts in profit and the remand direction were therefore left undisturbed, and the assessee&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 15:42:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133339" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (11) TMI 645 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96280</link>
      <description>Donations made out of profit left after meeting production costs and sale realisations remained part of the manufacturer&#039;s profit for excise valuation under Rule 6(b)(ii), because post-profit application did not alter the character of the amount. Unexplained differences in bad debts were also treated as includible in the profit computation. The remand on miscellaneous income was sustained because its source, including whether it arose from manufacture or some other activity, required factual verification. The inclusion of the disputed amounts in profit and the remand direction were therefore left undisturbed, and the assessee&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96280</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>