<?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>1983 (6) TMI 181 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166172</link>
    <description>Duty on cotton yarn collected under the special compounded levy procedure for composite mills was part of the assessable value of cotton fabrics, because the procedure only deferred the stage and manner of collection and did not exempt the yarn from duty. For Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the phrase &quot;such goods&quot; referred to the fabrics being cleared, so the deferred yarn duty formed part of manufacturing cost and had to be included in valuation. The double taxation objection failed because yarn and fabrics were taxed under different tariff items at different rates, and the later exemption notification reinforced that, absent exemption, the yarn-duty element was includible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Jun 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2014 18:46:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=363983" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (6) TMI 181 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166172</link>
      <description>Duty on cotton yarn collected under the special compounded levy procedure for composite mills was part of the assessable value of cotton fabrics, because the procedure only deferred the stage and manner of collection and did not exempt the yarn from duty. For Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the phrase &quot;such goods&quot; referred to the fabrics being cleared, so the deferred yarn duty formed part of manufacturing cost and had to be included in valuation. The double taxation objection failed because yarn and fabrics were taxed under different tariff items at different rates, and the later exemption notification reinforced that, absent exemption, the yarn-duty element was includible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Jun 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166172</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>