<?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>TOOL AMMORTISATION MATTER</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/forum/issue?id=108691</link>
    <description>A manufacturer paid excise duty when invoicing for tooling supplied to a buyer; later the buyer returned the tool and ordered components priced without tooling cost. The department argues tooling amortisation must be added to component value and excise charged per piece, but the advisory reply indicates excise was already paid on the tool and the amortisation issue pertains to the buyer&#039;s accounting rather than creating a fresh excise liability for the manufacturer.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2015 14:26:07 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2025 15:56:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=386692" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>TOOL AMMORTISATION MATTER</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/forum/issue?id=108691</link>
      <description>A manufacturer paid excise duty when invoicing for tooling supplied to a buyer; later the buyer returned the tool and ordered components priced without tooling cost. The department argues tooling amortisation must be added to component value and excise charged per piece, but the advisory reply indicates excise was already paid on the tool and the amortisation issue pertains to the buyer&#039;s accounting rather than creating a fresh excise liability for the manufacturer.</description>
      <category>Discussion-Forum</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2015 14:26:07 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/forum/issue?id=108691</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>