<?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>1984 (12) TMI 307 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167350</link>
    <description>For central excise valuation, the value of an additional water tank supplied with coolers was treated as part of the assessable value because the tank formed a composite supply with the cooler and had no separate independent utility. The Tribunal noted that the tank was priced separately but was included in the duty base, and it distinguished authorities dealing with independently assessable items or true accessories. The exemption notification cited was found irrelevant on the facts. It was also observed that attachment of tank components acquired from third parties to the main unit would still amount to manufacture attracting duty. The appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2014 12:02:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=371356" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (12) TMI 307 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167350</link>
      <description>For central excise valuation, the value of an additional water tank supplied with coolers was treated as part of the assessable value because the tank formed a composite supply with the cooler and had no separate independent utility. The Tribunal noted that the tank was priced separately but was included in the duty base, and it distinguished authorities dealing with independently assessable items or true accessories. The exemption notification cited was found irrelevant on the facts. It was also observed that attachment of tank components acquired from third parties to the main unit would still amount to manufacture attracting duty. The appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167350</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>