<?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 (7) TMI 1666 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364358</link>
    <description>Separately recovered charges for design, drawing and layout development were held includible in the assessable value of printed cartons because they were charged outside the invoice value and the records did not show that they had already been amortised in the finished goods cost. The Tribunal treated such pre-manufacturing design and artwork charges as part of excisable value and upheld the demand. It also sustained penalty for non-disclosure of additional recoveries, finding suppression of material facts and rejecting the plea that the department already knew of the receipts. The appeal therefore failed on both merits and penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2018 05:30:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=528399" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 1666 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364358</link>
      <description>Separately recovered charges for design, drawing and layout development were held includible in the assessable value of printed cartons because they were charged outside the invoice value and the records did not show that they had already been amortised in the finished goods cost. The Tribunal treated such pre-manufacturing design and artwork charges as part of excisable value and upheld the demand. It also sustained penalty for non-disclosure of additional recoveries, finding suppression of material facts and rejecting the plea that the department already knew of the receipts. The appeal therefore failed on both merits and penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364358</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>