<?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 491 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337411</link>
    <description>Processed grey fabrics were valued on a market-based cost approach under Rule 6(b)(i), with the assessee including yarn cost, conversion charges, wastage, process loss, and processing and packing charges. The commentary notes that the Revenue proposed to add balance-sheet items such as interest, administrative expenses, employee payments, and depreciation, but that approach lacked legal basis where market-based costing had already been accepted. It also states that a 10% notional profit margin demand and a penalty issue could not be reopened in de novo proceedings after earlier unchallenged orders had attained finality, so final findings on those points remained binding.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2017 16:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=454656" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 491 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337411</link>
      <description>Processed grey fabrics were valued on a market-based cost approach under Rule 6(b)(i), with the assessee including yarn cost, conversion charges, wastage, process loss, and processing and packing charges. The commentary notes that the Revenue proposed to add balance-sheet items such as interest, administrative expenses, employee payments, and depreciation, but that approach lacked legal basis where market-based costing had already been accepted. It also states that a 10% notional profit margin demand and a penalty issue could not be reopened in de novo proceedings after earlier unchallenged orders had attained finality, so final findings on those points remained binding.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337411</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>