<?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 (2) TMI 965 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309039</link>
    <description>Free-supplied packing material is not includible in the assessable value where the packing cost is incurred by the customer and not the manufacturer. Input clearances without reversing already availed Modvat credit justified the demand and appropriation when the short reversal was admitted and made good. Rule 173H did not permit clearance of freshly manufactured bottles against returned duty-paid rejected bottles, and suppression supported invocation of the extended period together with penalty. The appeal succeeded only on valuation of the customer-supplied packing material, while the remaining duty demands and penalty were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Aug 2023 14:29:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=722001" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (2) TMI 965 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309039</link>
      <description>Free-supplied packing material is not includible in the assessable value where the packing cost is incurred by the customer and not the manufacturer. Input clearances without reversing already availed Modvat credit justified the demand and appropriation when the short reversal was admitted and made good. Rule 173H did not permit clearance of freshly manufactured bottles against returned duty-paid rejected bottles, and suppression supported invocation of the extended period together with penalty. The appeal succeeded only on valuation of the customer-supplied packing material, while the remaining duty demands and penalty were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309039</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>