<?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>2019 (5) TMI 447 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379719</link>
    <description>In excise valuation, only actual recoveries forming part of the assessable value can be brought to duty. Debit notes used for conversion charges were not treated as additional recoveries on the record, but the appellant&#039;s admitted administration and miscellaneous charges, not included in the duty base, attracted duty on that amount. On small scale exemption, permitted use of trade marks under distributor arrangements did not by itself amount to sale of the brand name where the agreements and affidavits showed a sale-cum-purchase structure and no transfer of the trade mark. The commentary states that the remaining demand, interest and penalties were set aside, with only the admitted differential duty and interest sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 May 2019 07:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=570031" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (5) TMI 447 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379719</link>
      <description>In excise valuation, only actual recoveries forming part of the assessable value can be brought to duty. Debit notes used for conversion charges were not treated as additional recoveries on the record, but the appellant&#039;s admitted administration and miscellaneous charges, not included in the duty base, attracted duty on that amount. On small scale exemption, permitted use of trade marks under distributor arrangements did not by itself amount to sale of the brand name where the agreements and affidavits showed a sale-cum-purchase structure and no transfer of the trade mark. The commentary states that the remaining demand, interest and penalties were set aside, with only the admitted differential duty and interest sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379719</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>