<?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>2011 (9) TMI 776 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212029</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled that Rule 10(a) and Rule 8 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000, were not applicable in the case involving goods manufactured on a job work basis. The correct valuation method involved considering the cost of raw materials plus job charges, including the job worker&#039;s profit. The Tribunal set aside the previous orders, allowing the appeals and confirming that the appellant had appropriately valued the goods.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2012 08:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=185443" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (9) TMI 776 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212029</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled that Rule 10(a) and Rule 8 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000, were not applicable in the case involving goods manufactured on a job work basis. The correct valuation method involved considering the cost of raw materials plus job charges, including the job worker&#039;s profit. The Tribunal set aside the previous orders, allowing the appeals and confirming that the appellant had appropriately valued the goods.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212029</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>