<?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>2018 (4) TMI 1230 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359119</link>
    <description>In job-work clearances returned to the principal manufacturer, valuation was required to follow the settled basis of cost of raw materials plus processing charges, and Rule 10A was held inapplicable on those facts. A notional freight and insurance loading was not accepted unless the landed cost at the job worker&#039;s premises was properly established, with reworking to be supported by a Chartered Accountant&#039;s certificate. Because any duty paid would be available as Cenvat credit to the principal manufacturer, the situation was revenue neutral and suppression could not justify the extended period; limitation was confined to the normal period and penalty was not sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2018 05:58:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=517891" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 1230 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359119</link>
      <description>In job-work clearances returned to the principal manufacturer, valuation was required to follow the settled basis of cost of raw materials plus processing charges, and Rule 10A was held inapplicable on those facts. A notional freight and insurance loading was not accepted unless the landed cost at the job worker&#039;s premises was properly established, with reworking to be supported by a Chartered Accountant&#039;s certificate. Because any duty paid would be available as Cenvat credit to the principal manufacturer, the situation was revenue neutral and suppression could not justify the extended period; limitation was confined to the normal period and penalty was not sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359119</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>