<?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>2005 (1) TMI 458 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114937</link>
    <description>Valuation of soap manufactured on job-work basis is to reach the factory-gate value on the date of removal, whether assessed by cost construction or by deduction from the trader&#039;s price. The Constitution Bench ruling in Ujagar Prints and the later clarificatory order treat Rule 6(b)(2) and Rule 7 as alternative routes to the same assessable value, namely the nearest equivalent of normal price under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Where there is no material dispute on quantity, deductions, or quantum, a challenge confined to the rule applied does not disturb the valuation. The appellate authority&#039;s valuation was sustained and the Revenue&#039;s appeal was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 14:31:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151936" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (1) TMI 458 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114937</link>
      <description>Valuation of soap manufactured on job-work basis is to reach the factory-gate value on the date of removal, whether assessed by cost construction or by deduction from the trader&#039;s price. The Constitution Bench ruling in Ujagar Prints and the later clarificatory order treat Rule 6(b)(2) and Rule 7 as alternative routes to the same assessable value, namely the nearest equivalent of normal price under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Where there is no material dispute on quantity, deductions, or quantum, a challenge confined to the rule applied does not disturb the valuation. The appellate authority&#039;s valuation was sustained and the Revenue&#039;s appeal was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114937</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>