<?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>2013 (4) TMI 220 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=222024</link>
    <description>For central excise valuation, software supplied with digital loop carrier equipment is not includible in the assessable value of the hardware unless it formed part of the goods at the time of removal from the factory. On the stated facts, the equipment could operate without the software, the software was treated as separately cleared, and there was no reliable evidence that it had been preloaded before clearance; separate treatment was therefore justified. The extended period of limitation was also unavailable because the department failed to prove suppression or wilful misstatement, and the penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 25 could not survive once the duty demand foundation failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2013 11:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=195374" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (4) TMI 220 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=222024</link>
      <description>For central excise valuation, software supplied with digital loop carrier equipment is not includible in the assessable value of the hardware unless it formed part of the goods at the time of removal from the factory. On the stated facts, the equipment could operate without the software, the software was treated as separately cleared, and there was no reliable evidence that it had been preloaded before clearance; separate treatment was therefore justified. The extended period of limitation was also unavailable because the department failed to prove suppression or wilful misstatement, and the penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 25 could not survive once the duty demand foundation failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=222024</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>