<?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 (5) TMI 598 - CESTAT, HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342860</link>
    <description>Clearance of fully assembled computer systems through split invoicing was treated as manufacture rather than mere trading, because invoice-wise records, purchase orders, customer statements and the appellant&#039;s own statement showed supply of complete workable systems. On that basis, the duty demand was sustained, with valuation reworked by excluding peripherals in line with the applicable position on computer systems and peripherals. The de novo enhancement of penalties was not supported, as no new facts or fresh basis justified a higher penalty than in the first round of adjudication; the enhanced penalties were therefore set aside and the earlier penalty levels restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 May 2017 08:43:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=468527" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (5) TMI 598 - CESTAT, HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342860</link>
      <description>Clearance of fully assembled computer systems through split invoicing was treated as manufacture rather than mere trading, because invoice-wise records, purchase orders, customer statements and the appellant&#039;s own statement showed supply of complete workable systems. On that basis, the duty demand was sustained, with valuation reworked by excluding peripherals in line with the applicable position on computer systems and peripherals. The de novo enhancement of penalties was not supported, as no new facts or fresh basis justified a higher penalty than in the first round of adjudication; the enhanced penalties were therefore set aside and the earlier penalty levels restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342860</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>