<?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>1992 (11) TMI 97 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43466</link>
    <description>Excise valuation of motor vehicle chassis cleared from the factory gate cannot include the value of spare wheels, rims, carriers, tyres, tubes or tools that do not form part of the cleared goods. Their mention in approved vehicle specifications, or a regulatory requirement that vehicles carry them, does not alter the assessable value at the point of clearance. Reliance on specifications was insufficient to determine valuation merely because the manufacturer used self-removal procedures and filed classification and price lists. A differential-duty demand founded on this impermissible inclusion was without jurisdiction and was quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Jun 2010 12:13:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81995" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (11) TMI 97 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43466</link>
      <description>Excise valuation of motor vehicle chassis cleared from the factory gate cannot include the value of spare wheels, rims, carriers, tyres, tubes or tools that do not form part of the cleared goods. Their mention in approved vehicle specifications, or a regulatory requirement that vehicles carry them, does not alter the assessable value at the point of clearance. Reliance on specifications was insufficient to determine valuation merely because the manufacturer used self-removal procedures and filed classification and price lists. A differential-duty demand founded on this impermissible inclusion was without jurisdiction and was quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43466</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>