https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270049 For captive clearances, valuation was addressed by reference to CAS-4 cost of production, and the Tribunal noted that administrative overheads linked to marketing, project management and corporate office functions were not includible in assessable value. It also recorded that the Board circular of 13.02.2003 affirmed the CAS-4 basis for valuation and did not introduce a new prospective regime. On that approach, the exclusion of selling and distribution expenses and corporate office expenses from value was maintained and the Revenue challenge failed. en-us Tue, 03 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Dec 2015 12:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270049 For captive clearances, valuation was addressed by reference to CAS-4 cost of production, and the Tribunal noted that administrative overheads linked to marketing, project management and corporate office functions were not includible in assessable value. It also recorded that the Board circular of 13.02.2003 affirmed the CAS-4 basis for valuation and did not introduce a new prospective regime. On that approach, the exclusion of selling and distribution expenses and corporate office expenses from value was maintained and the Revenue challenge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 03 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270049