<?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 (7) TMI 403 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96445</link>
    <description>Clearance value for small-scale industry exemption had not been computed on the proper basis, as the price was required to be treated as duty-inclusive and reworked under excise valuation rules before the demand could be determined; the valuation was set aside and remanded for fresh calculation. Denial of handicraft exemption under Notification No. 76/86 was also unsustainable because the record lacked adequate evidence of ornamentation or inlay work, so the question of substantial artistic or decorative workmanship required reconsideration on proper evidence; that finding was set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication. The entire order was set aside and the matter sent back de novo, with other issues left open.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:11:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133504" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (7) TMI 403 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96445</link>
      <description>Clearance value for small-scale industry exemption had not been computed on the proper basis, as the price was required to be treated as duty-inclusive and reworked under excise valuation rules before the demand could be determined; the valuation was set aside and remanded for fresh calculation. Denial of handicraft exemption under Notification No. 76/86 was also unsustainable because the record lacked adequate evidence of ornamentation or inlay work, so the question of substantial artistic or decorative workmanship required reconsideration on proper evidence; that finding was set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication. The entire order was set aside and the matter sent back de novo, with other issues left open.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96445</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>