<?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>2008 (5) TMI 138 - CESTAT Bangalore</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31133</link>
    <description>Goods manufactured on job-work basis were held not to fall under the compounded levy scheme merely because they were produced with hot-rolling machinery. The products, including flanges and lock rings made to specification for an automobile manufacturer, were treated in commerce as automobile components rather than hot-rolled products of Chapter 72. As there was no evidence that they were sold by weight in the market as hot-rolled goods, the conditions for assessment under Section 3A were not met. Duty was therefore payable under the regular transaction-value regime, and the redetermination of annual capacity of production was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=69786" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (5) TMI 138 - CESTAT Bangalore</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31133</link>
      <description>Goods manufactured on job-work basis were held not to fall under the compounded levy scheme merely because they were produced with hot-rolling machinery. The products, including flanges and lock rings made to specification for an automobile manufacturer, were treated in commerce as automobile components rather than hot-rolled products of Chapter 72. As there was no evidence that they were sold by weight in the market as hot-rolled goods, the conditions for assessment under Section 3A were not met. Duty was therefore payable under the regular transaction-value regime, and the redetermination of annual capacity of production was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31133</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>