<?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>2009 (11) TMI 764 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154876</link>
    <description>Central excise valuation depends on the value of goods at the place of removal, i.e. the condition in which they are cleared from the factory. Post-clearance bullet proofing carried out outside the factory by an independent job worker was not part of the assessable value, because later value addition at a separate premises did not alter the valuation basis under Section 4. The fact that the buyer and processing unit belonged to the same group did not justify inclusion of that later cost. The Revenue&#039;s demand was therefore unsustainable, and exclusion of the job worker&#039;s post-clearance activity from assessable value was affirmed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 May 2017 12:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171907" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (11) TMI 764 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154876</link>
      <description>Central excise valuation depends on the value of goods at the place of removal, i.e. the condition in which they are cleared from the factory. Post-clearance bullet proofing carried out outside the factory by an independent job worker was not part of the assessable value, because later value addition at a separate premises did not alter the valuation basis under Section 4. The fact that the buyer and processing unit belonged to the same group did not justify inclusion of that later cost. The Revenue&#039;s demand was therefore unsustainable, and exclusion of the job worker&#039;s post-clearance activity from assessable value was affirmed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154876</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>