<?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>1985 (6) TMI 181 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167427</link>
    <description>Amounts recovered separately by debit notes over and above the declared price were treated as part of the assessable value for excise duty where they represented additional realisation linked to pre-manufacturing costs, including transport of raw materials to the factory. The valuation pleas based on controlled price, like goods price, and exemption under Notification No. 265/76-C.E. were rejected because the extra recoveries were not disclosed in the price list and the assessee was not shown to fall within the relevant control regime. On limitation, suppression was inferred from the undisclosed debit notes and the extended period was held invocable, so the demand survived.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jun 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2014 14:26:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=371528" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (6) TMI 181 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167427</link>
      <description>Amounts recovered separately by debit notes over and above the declared price were treated as part of the assessable value for excise duty where they represented additional realisation linked to pre-manufacturing costs, including transport of raw materials to the factory. The valuation pleas based on controlled price, like goods price, and exemption under Notification No. 265/76-C.E. were rejected because the extra recoveries were not disclosed in the price list and the assessee was not shown to fall within the relevant control regime. On limitation, suppression was inferred from the undisclosed debit notes and the extended period was held invocable, so the demand survived.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jun 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167427</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>