<?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>2004 (3) TMI 454 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110979</link>
    <description>Job-work clearances of yarn are to be valued on the cost of raw materials plus job charges and permissible additions, rather than by reference to comparable goods or depot sale prices merely because the principal also sells from depots. The note further states that a differential duty demand cannot be sustained where the confirmation is based on a ground not set out in the show cause notice, or where proceedings are initiated by an authority lacking proper jurisdiction against the wrong person. The stated effect is that the valuation adopted by the assessee was accepted and the duty demand was treated as procedurally and jurisdictionally defective.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 16:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147995" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (3) TMI 454 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110979</link>
      <description>Job-work clearances of yarn are to be valued on the cost of raw materials plus job charges and permissible additions, rather than by reference to comparable goods or depot sale prices merely because the principal also sells from depots. The note further states that a differential duty demand cannot be sustained where the confirmation is based on a ground not set out in the show cause notice, or where proceedings are initiated by an authority lacking proper jurisdiction against the wrong person. The stated effect is that the valuation adopted by the assessee was accepted and the duty demand was treated as procedurally and jurisdictionally defective.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110979</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>