<?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>1976 (3) TMI 229 - APPELLATE COLLECTOR CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165625</link>
    <description>A grill treated as functionally necessary for blower type evaporative coolers was held to be an integral part of the product, so its value was includible in assessable value under the tariff. The fact that accessories were sold separately and the ISI standard was relied on did not alter excisability, which depended on the product&#039;s nature and the part&#039;s actual function. On limitation, where price lists had been filed and approved and the department had the opportunity to verify inclusion of grill value, the short levy was treated as arising from departmental inadvertence and the demand beyond one year under Rule 10 was held time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Aug 2014 12:14:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=361261" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (3) TMI 229 - APPELLATE COLLECTOR CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165625</link>
      <description>A grill treated as functionally necessary for blower type evaporative coolers was held to be an integral part of the product, so its value was includible in assessable value under the tariff. The fact that accessories were sold separately and the ISI standard was relied on did not alter excisability, which depended on the product&#039;s nature and the part&#039;s actual function. On limitation, where price lists had been filed and approved and the department had the opportunity to verify inclusion of grill value, the short levy was treated as arising from departmental inadvertence and the demand beyond one year under Rule 10 was held time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165625</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>