<?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 (6) TMI 175 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361348</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants in an appeal against a duty demand on tooling cost not included in the assessable value of final products. The Tribunal held that the appellants correctly calculated the amortization of tooling cost based on the expected lifespan of tools, as per a previous Tribunal judgment. The Tribunal rejected the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s approach of amortizing the entire tool cost based on ordered quantity and emphasized the correctness of the appellants&#039; method. The Tribunal distinguished relevant case laws cited by both parties and set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s order in favor of the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Jun 2018 10:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=522542" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (6) TMI 175 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361348</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants in an appeal against a duty demand on tooling cost not included in the assessable value of final products. The Tribunal held that the appellants correctly calculated the amortization of tooling cost based on the expected lifespan of tools, as per a previous Tribunal judgment. The Tribunal rejected the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s approach of amortizing the entire tool cost based on ordered quantity and emphasized the correctness of the appellants&#039; method. The Tribunal distinguished relevant case laws cited by both parties and set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s order in favor of the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361348</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>