<?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>2015 (10) TMI 848 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265573</link>
    <description>Design, drawing and development charges received through debit notes were treated as includible in the assessable value of excisable components, along with the amortised cost of moulds, where certificate evidence supported allocation to the clearances. The record also showed that differential duty had already been paid before issuance of the first show cause notice, so the demand could not be recovered again to that extent. The penalty was waived on the footing that the differential duty had been paid before notice. The demand was therefore sustained only to the extent of the admitted duty already paid, while the remaining relief was left undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=401178" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 848 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265573</link>
      <description>Design, drawing and development charges received through debit notes were treated as includible in the assessable value of excisable components, along with the amortised cost of moulds, where certificate evidence supported allocation to the clearances. The record also showed that differential duty had already been paid before issuance of the first show cause notice, so the demand could not be recovered again to that extent. The penalty was waived on the footing that the differential duty had been paid before notice. The demand was therefore sustained only to the extent of the admitted duty already paid, while the remaining relief was left undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265573</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>