<?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>2003 (10) TMI 445 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110068</link>
    <description>For cost-based valuation of captively consumed goods, manufacturing cost was treated as prima facie including expenses intrinsically connected with manufacture, such as raw material procurement, labour, machinery maintenance and factory upkeep. On the material placed, the Tribunal did not accept the assessee&#039;s contention that administrative overheads and head office expenses were fully excluded from the valuation base. In the stay application, the absence of satisfactory proof on inclusion of the disputed cost elements and the lack of a financial hardship plea led the Tribunal to grant only partial waiver of pre-deposit and require a substantial deposit for the balance duty demand and penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:19:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147084" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (10) TMI 445 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110068</link>
      <description>For cost-based valuation of captively consumed goods, manufacturing cost was treated as prima facie including expenses intrinsically connected with manufacture, such as raw material procurement, labour, machinery maintenance and factory upkeep. On the material placed, the Tribunal did not accept the assessee&#039;s contention that administrative overheads and head office expenses were fully excluded from the valuation base. In the stay application, the absence of satisfactory proof on inclusion of the disputed cost elements and the lack of a financial hardship plea led the Tribunal to grant only partial waiver of pre-deposit and require a substantial deposit for the balance duty demand and penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110068</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>