<?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>2016 (4) TMI 889 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326775</link>
    <description>For excise valuation, the cost of bullet proofing carried out after factory clearance of jeeps was not includible in transaction value because the goods were removed from the factory without that processing and the value addition arose only from post-clearance work performed outside the factory premises by job workers. The assessable value therefore could not be increased by the bullet proofing cost, and the appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 May 2016 18:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=425043" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (4) TMI 889 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326775</link>
      <description>For excise valuation, the cost of bullet proofing carried out after factory clearance of jeeps was not includible in transaction value because the goods were removed from the factory without that processing and the value addition arose only from post-clearance work performed outside the factory premises by job workers. The assessable value therefore could not be increased by the bullet proofing cost, and the appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326775</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>