<?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 (12) TMI 639 - CEGAT,  KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99355</link>
    <description>The assessable value of excisable goods manufactured by a job worker had to be determined under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the intrinsic value of the final product, including the cost of components supplied free of cost under Rule 57F(2). The movement of inputs under that rule did not change the valuation principle, so inclusion of the free-supplied components was correct. The plea of revenue neutrality based on Modvat credit failed because the supplier had already availed credit on the inputs, and the job worker could not claim the same credit again. The alternative request for credit to be allowed to the supplier was not examined and was left for the proper officer.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:00:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136407" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (12) TMI 639 - CEGAT,  KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99355</link>
      <description>The assessable value of excisable goods manufactured by a job worker had to be determined under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the intrinsic value of the final product, including the cost of components supplied free of cost under Rule 57F(2). The movement of inputs under that rule did not change the valuation principle, so inclusion of the free-supplied components was correct. The plea of revenue neutrality based on Modvat credit failed because the supplier had already availed credit on the inputs, and the job worker could not claim the same credit again. The alternative request for credit to be allowed to the supplier was not examined and was left for the proper officer.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99355</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>