<?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>2001 (3) TMI 512 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96348</link>
    <description>Third-party inspection and testing charges are not includible in the assessable value of forgings if the external testing is merely additional to the manufacturer&#039;s own testing, because the goods would already be marketable after the manufacturer&#039;s testing. Where the third party performs the entire testing ordinarily undertaken by the manufacturer, the cost may stand on a different footing. On the facts presented, there was no supporting evidence to show that the third-party testing was only optional or additional, so that factual question required further examination. The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration of the includibility of inspection charges.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2011 11:33:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133407" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (3) TMI 512 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96348</link>
      <description>Third-party inspection and testing charges are not includible in the assessable value of forgings if the external testing is merely additional to the manufacturer&#039;s own testing, because the goods would already be marketable after the manufacturer&#039;s testing. Where the third party performs the entire testing ordinarily undertaken by the manufacturer, the cost may stand on a different footing. On the facts presented, there was no supporting evidence to show that the third-party testing was only optional or additional, so that factual question required further examination. The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration of the includibility of inspection charges.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96348</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>