<?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 valuation of yarn is determined from raw-material cost, processing charges, freight, insurance, overheads and a reasonable profit margin, rather than comparable-goods or depot-sale prices merely because the supplier also sells goods through depots. Differential duty cannot be confirmed on a basis not alleged in the show cause notice, including reliance on depot prices and the normal-price provision. A demand is also unsustainable where the issuing division lacks jurisdiction over the person proceeded against or the job-worker manufacturer has not been proceeded against as required. The valuation method based on manufacturing cost and permissible additions was accepted, and the duty demand was set aside.</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 valuation of yarn is determined from raw-material cost, processing charges, freight, insurance, overheads and a reasonable profit margin, rather than comparable-goods or depot-sale prices merely because the supplier also sells goods through depots. Differential duty cannot be confirmed on a basis not alleged in the show cause notice, including reliance on depot prices and the normal-price provision. A demand is also unsustainable where the issuing division lacks jurisdiction over the person proceeded against or the job-worker manufacturer has not been proceeded against as required. The valuation method based on manufacturing cost and permissible additions was accepted, and the duty demand was set aside.</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>