<?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 (5) TMI 729 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100586</link>
    <description>Crushing, pulverising, mixing with chemicals, moulding, curing and heat treatment of rejected refractory bricks was treated as manufacture because the resulting chemically bonded chrome manganese bricks were commercially distinct, with a different name, character and use. The appellant&#039;s reliance on repair or rectification authorities was held inapplicable. On valuation, duty had been worked out on a basis that excluded the value of free-supplied raw material, but the applicable valuation rule was not clearly identified and the correct hierarchy of valuation methods had not been properly applied. The valuation was therefore set aside and remanded for fresh determination under the correct provision with reasons.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 12:50:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137637" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (5) TMI 729 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100586</link>
      <description>Crushing, pulverising, mixing with chemicals, moulding, curing and heat treatment of rejected refractory bricks was treated as manufacture because the resulting chemically bonded chrome manganese bricks were commercially distinct, with a different name, character and use. The appellant&#039;s reliance on repair or rectification authorities was held inapplicable. On valuation, duty had been worked out on a basis that excluded the value of free-supplied raw material, but the applicable valuation rule was not clearly identified and the correct hierarchy of valuation methods had not been properly applied. The valuation was therefore set aside and remanded for fresh determination under the correct provision with reasons.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100586</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>