<?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>2008 (3) TMI 576 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123652</link>
    <description>Duty-paid components used to assemble a DG set in the assessee&#039;s factory qualified for capital goods credit, and the benefit was not denied merely because the prescribed declaration and other procedural formalities were not complied with. The Tribunal also held that erection and commissioning charges were not includible in the assessable value of the assembled DG set, and that notional profit on assembly had no relevance on the facts. On that basis, the Revenue&#039;s challenge to the valuation and the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s view failed, and the order setting aside the demand, confiscation, and penalty was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Sep 2012 18:06:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160616" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (3) TMI 576 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123652</link>
      <description>Duty-paid components used to assemble a DG set in the assessee&#039;s factory qualified for capital goods credit, and the benefit was not denied merely because the prescribed declaration and other procedural formalities were not complied with. The Tribunal also held that erection and commissioning charges were not includible in the assessable value of the assembled DG set, and that notional profit on assembly had no relevance on the facts. On that basis, the Revenue&#039;s challenge to the valuation and the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s view failed, and the order setting aside the demand, confiscation, and penalty was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123652</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>