<?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 (9) TMI 18 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236585</link>
    <description>Product development charges and consultancy charges collected by a job worker from the principal manufacturer were not includible in the assessable value of job-worked medicaments under the Ujagar Prints formula. The assessable value had already been determined on the basis of raw material cost, conversion cost and profit, and the disputed amounts were not shown to relate to the job work or to conversion of raw materials into finished goods. The product development charges were also debited in a composite manner across multiple medicaments, and service tax had been paid on those charges, supporting exclusion from Central Excise valuation. The Revenue&#039;s challenge therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Aug 2013 10:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=198992" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (9) TMI 18 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236585</link>
      <description>Product development charges and consultancy charges collected by a job worker from the principal manufacturer were not includible in the assessable value of job-worked medicaments under the Ujagar Prints formula. The assessable value had already been determined on the basis of raw material cost, conversion cost and profit, and the disputed amounts were not shown to relate to the job work or to conversion of raw materials into finished goods. The product development charges were also debited in a composite manner across multiple medicaments, and service tax had been paid on those charges, supporting exclusion from Central Excise valuation. The Revenue&#039;s challenge therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236585</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>