<?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 (12) TMI 388 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110427</link>
    <description>Valuation of job-work clearances depends first on whether comparable goods are available. Where the assessee manufactures identical goods on its own account and sells them in the market, Rule 6(b)(i) requires valuation by the comparable-goods method; the residual cost-based method under Rule 6(b)(ii) applies only if that primary method is inapplicable. The authorities had not verified whether the own-manufacture and job-work goods were truly identical and comparable, so fresh factual examination was required before choosing the valuation basis. The dispute was therefore remanded for reconsideration of the proper assessable value on that footing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2012 17:16:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147443" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (12) TMI 388 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110427</link>
      <description>Valuation of job-work clearances depends first on whether comparable goods are available. Where the assessee manufactures identical goods on its own account and sells them in the market, Rule 6(b)(i) requires valuation by the comparable-goods method; the residual cost-based method under Rule 6(b)(ii) applies only if that primary method is inapplicable. The authorities had not verified whether the own-manufacture and job-work goods were truly identical and comparable, so fresh factual examination was required before choosing the valuation basis. The dispute was therefore remanded for reconsideration of the proper assessable value on that footing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110427</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>