<?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>1995 (1) TMI 69 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43907</link>
    <description>Valuation of bottles used for captive consumption under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, with the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975, had to be made under the prescribed rules where normal price was unavailable. Rule 6(b)(i) permitted use of the value of comparable goods manufactured by the assessee or another assessee. Because the bottles differed in size and shape and the price lists showed distinct values for separate categories, valuation had to be carried out separately by class or category. Using comparable prices where the declared price was lower, and accepting the declared price where it was higher, was consistent with the valuation framework.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Jul 2014 11:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82436" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (1) TMI 69 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43907</link>
      <description>Valuation of bottles used for captive consumption under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, with the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975, had to be made under the prescribed rules where normal price was unavailable. Rule 6(b)(i) permitted use of the value of comparable goods manufactured by the assessee or another assessee. Because the bottles differed in size and shape and the price lists showed distinct values for separate categories, valuation had to be carried out separately by class or category. Using comparable prices where the declared price was lower, and accepting the declared price where it was higher, was consistent with the valuation framework.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43907</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>