<?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>2010 (12) TMI 1136 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170294</link>
    <description>Charges for acetoning were held to form part of the assessable value of dissolved acetylene gas because acetone was used as an essential solvent in the manufacturing process and not as a post-manufacturing service. Repair and handling charges were also includible where the record showed suppression of the true nature of the charge, justifying invocation of the extended limitation period. Personal penalty under Rule 209A could not stand without a specific finding of knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation, so those penalties were set aside. Penalty under Rule 210 was treated as available, but was confined to the statutory ceiling.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 May 2015 18:32:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=385677" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (12) TMI 1136 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170294</link>
      <description>Charges for acetoning were held to form part of the assessable value of dissolved acetylene gas because acetone was used as an essential solvent in the manufacturing process and not as a post-manufacturing service. Repair and handling charges were also includible where the record showed suppression of the true nature of the charge, justifying invocation of the extended limitation period. Personal penalty under Rule 209A could not stand without a specific finding of knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation, so those penalties were set aside. Penalty under Rule 210 was treated as available, but was confined to the statutory ceiling.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170294</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>