<?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 (11) TMI 450 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115157</link>
    <description>Excisable pesticides and insecticides cleared in bulk from a factory to a service centre for use in pest control contracts were not to be valued on retail sale prices, because the transfers were not sales of retail packs to independent buyers. Valuation had to follow the excise framework applicable where no direct sale price was available, using a cost-construction or comparable captive-consumption method consistent with the statutory valuation scheme. Different packing and service use made retail comparison inappropriate, and the Board&#039;s circulars supported excluding retail-price valuation in this context. The result was that the revenue&#039;s challenge failed and valuation was to be determined on the cost-based basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 13:08:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152156" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (11) TMI 450 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115157</link>
      <description>Excisable pesticides and insecticides cleared in bulk from a factory to a service centre for use in pest control contracts were not to be valued on retail sale prices, because the transfers were not sales of retail packs to independent buyers. Valuation had to follow the excise framework applicable where no direct sale price was available, using a cost-construction or comparable captive-consumption method consistent with the statutory valuation scheme. Different packing and service use made retail comparison inappropriate, and the Board&#039;s circulars supported excluding retail-price valuation in this context. The result was that the revenue&#039;s challenge failed and valuation was to be determined on the cost-based basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115157</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>