<?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>2002 (8) TMI 542 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105701</link>
    <description>Conversion of paper reels into reams at the depot was treated as not amounting to manufacture, and the slitting or conversion cost was not includible where it was incurred by persons other than the assessee. For the pre-amendment period, where a factory-gate price for similar goods was available, that price was the proper basis for valuing reels cleared for slitting. For the post-amendment period, the goods were regarded as undergoing further processing at the depot, and where comparable prices were unavailable, valuation had to be made under the prescribed valuation rule. The demand was therefore required to be reworked on these valuation principles, with limitation and penalty left open for fresh adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2012 12:11:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142739" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (8) TMI 542 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105701</link>
      <description>Conversion of paper reels into reams at the depot was treated as not amounting to manufacture, and the slitting or conversion cost was not includible where it was incurred by persons other than the assessee. For the pre-amendment period, where a factory-gate price for similar goods was available, that price was the proper basis for valuing reels cleared for slitting. For the post-amendment period, the goods were regarded as undergoing further processing at the depot, and where comparable prices were unavailable, valuation had to be made under the prescribed valuation rule. The demand was therefore required to be reworked on these valuation principles, with limitation and penalty left open for fresh adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105701</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>