<?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>2007 (3) TMI 158 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2353</link>
    <description>In a job-work valuation dispute under the Cenvat/Modvat scheme, the CESTAT noted that duty-paid inputs supplied free by the principal manufacturer could not be added to the assessable value of intermediate goods manufactured by the job worker. Applying the principle in International Auto, it held that the job worker was not liable to duty on the basis adopted by the Revenue merely because the inputs were free-issued. It also rejected inclusion of scrap sale proceeds as additional consideration in these facts. On that reasoning, the duty demand, interest, and penalties were held unsustainable and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 19:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=41716" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (3) TMI 158 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2353</link>
      <description>In a job-work valuation dispute under the Cenvat/Modvat scheme, the CESTAT noted that duty-paid inputs supplied free by the principal manufacturer could not be added to the assessable value of intermediate goods manufactured by the job worker. Applying the principle in International Auto, it held that the job worker was not liable to duty on the basis adopted by the Revenue merely because the inputs were free-issued. It also rejected inclusion of scrap sale proceeds as additional consideration in these facts. On that reasoning, the duty demand, interest, and penalties were held unsustainable and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2353</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>