<?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>2017 (1) TMI 291 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337211</link>
    <description>Additional amounts received by debit notes for tools and dies manufactured by the assessee and retained in its factory were treated as part of the assessable value because the modification work made the tools functional for intended use and the charges were linked to the same goods. For tools and dies found to have been imported by the buyer, remand for verification was upheld. Non-disclosure of the debit-note receipts to the department was treated as suppression of material facts, so the extended period of limitation was held invocable. The duty demand on includible modification charges and the extended limitation finding were sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2018 12:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=454167" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 291 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337211</link>
      <description>Additional amounts received by debit notes for tools and dies manufactured by the assessee and retained in its factory were treated as part of the assessable value because the modification work made the tools functional for intended use and the charges were linked to the same goods. For tools and dies found to have been imported by the buyer, remand for verification was upheld. Non-disclosure of the debit-note receipts to the department was treated as suppression of material facts, so the extended period of limitation was held invocable. The duty demand on includible modification charges and the extended limitation finding were sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337211</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>