<?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 (5) TMI 377 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111818</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the duty demand on sheet metal components, including tooling costs in the assessable value for Central Excise duty calculation. It found that the appellant&#039;s failure to disclose separate recoveries for tooling charges indicated suppression of facts, justifying the extended period for issuing a show cause notice. Despite the appellant&#039;s arguments and reliance on past decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the inclusion of tooling costs was necessary and that the appellant&#039;s actions suggested an intention to evade duty. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, with the Tribunal finding no merit in the appellant&#039;s position.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:23:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148834" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (5) TMI 377 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111818</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the duty demand on sheet metal components, including tooling costs in the assessable value for Central Excise duty calculation. It found that the appellant&#039;s failure to disclose separate recoveries for tooling charges indicated suppression of facts, justifying the extended period for issuing a show cause notice. Despite the appellant&#039;s arguments and reliance on past decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the inclusion of tooling costs was necessary and that the appellant&#039;s actions suggested an intention to evade duty. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, with the Tribunal finding no merit in the appellant&#039;s position.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111818</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>