<?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>2010 (8) TMI 269 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202250</link>
    <description>For captively consumed lead and zinc concentrate, valuation under the cost of production method required the profit element to be linked to the relevant product division, not to overall corporate or projected profit. An unrelated balance-sheet profit could not be added where the assessee was a multi-product entity and the profit attributable to the goods concerned was the proper basis. On the facts, the assessee&#039;s accounts showed losses for the relevant year, and the proposed uniform notional profit addition was not supported. The lower authorities&#039; valuation was therefore sustained in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2011 16:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=175838" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (8) TMI 269 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202250</link>
      <description>For captively consumed lead and zinc concentrate, valuation under the cost of production method required the profit element to be linked to the relevant product division, not to overall corporate or projected profit. An unrelated balance-sheet profit could not be added where the assessee was a multi-product entity and the profit attributable to the goods concerned was the proper basis. On the facts, the assessee&#039;s accounts showed losses for the relevant year, and the proposed uniform notional profit addition was not supported. The lower authorities&#039; valuation was therefore sustained in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202250</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>