<?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 (12) TMI 28 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3536</link>
    <description>Modvat credit on glass bottles and plastic crates was considered in relation to whether their cost formed part of the assessable value of aerated waters under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal, relying on an earlier decision between the same parties and a Chartered Accountant&#039;s certificate, found as a fact that the packing material cost had been included on a pro rata basis in the assessable value of the final product. On that factual foundation, the High Court stated that it would not re-appreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent findings in reference proceedings. No referable question of law arose, so the Revenue&#039;s reference petition was declined.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=42888" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (12) TMI 28 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3536</link>
      <description>Modvat credit on glass bottles and plastic crates was considered in relation to whether their cost formed part of the assessable value of aerated waters under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal, relying on an earlier decision between the same parties and a Chartered Accountant&#039;s certificate, found as a fact that the packing material cost had been included on a pro rata basis in the assessable value of the final product. On that factual foundation, the High Court stated that it would not re-appreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent findings in reference proceedings. No referable question of law arose, so the Revenue&#039;s reference petition was declined.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3536</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>