<?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 (10) TMI 834 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103742</link>
    <description>Captively consumed yarn was prima facie to be valued on cost of production, including profit and administrative overheads, because the yarn sold by other manufacturers was not shown to be identical in count, composition, variety, or process. The comparative market price could therefore not displace the cost-based method. On limitation for the demand relating to dyeing and sizing of purchased yarn, departmental awareness of dyeing self-manufactured yarn did not by itself establish awareness of the separate activity involving purchased yarn, so limitation could not be accepted as a complete ground for waiver at that stage. Pre-deposit was directed in part, with the balance of duty and penalties waived pending compliance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Feb 2012 15:09:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140781" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (10) TMI 834 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103742</link>
      <description>Captively consumed yarn was prima facie to be valued on cost of production, including profit and administrative overheads, because the yarn sold by other manufacturers was not shown to be identical in count, composition, variety, or process. The comparative market price could therefore not displace the cost-based method. On limitation for the demand relating to dyeing and sizing of purchased yarn, departmental awareness of dyeing self-manufactured yarn did not by itself establish awareness of the separate activity involving purchased yarn, so limitation could not be accepted as a complete ground for waiver at that stage. Pre-deposit was directed in part, with the balance of duty and penalties waived pending compliance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103742</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>