<?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 (3) TMI 638 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96519</link>
    <description>Cutting charges recovered for steel tubes cut at the depot after clearance from the factory were not includible in the assessable value for excise duty. Duty had already been discharged on the factory-clearance price, and the later cutting was done post-clearance to meet dealer requirements. Expenses incurred by a manufacturer after the goods leave the factory are not part of manufacturing cost for excise valuation. The duty demand and penalty therefore could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:52:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133577" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (3) TMI 638 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96519</link>
      <description>Cutting charges recovered for steel tubes cut at the depot after clearance from the factory were not includible in the assessable value for excise duty. Duty had already been discharged on the factory-clearance price, and the later cutting was done post-clearance to meet dealer requirements. Expenses incurred by a manufacturer after the goods leave the factory are not part of manufacturing cost for excise valuation. The duty demand and penalty therefore could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96519</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>