<?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>2025 (5) TMI 1990 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771718</link>
    <description>An exemption notification allowing fixation of a special value-addition rate was applied on the basis of audited financial records and the statutory auditor&#039;s certificate. The appellant&#039;s audited accounts, cost records and supporting certificates were accepted as showing value addition at 82.29%, because the prescribed computation had been followed. The Commissioner&#039;s attempt to recast the calculation by adding freight subsidy and abnormal waste to material cost was found inconsistent with the relevant accounting method, and the reduced value addition was rejected. The discussion concludes that special rate computation must conform to the notification&#039;s prescribed accounting framework and cannot be altered by loading costs contrary to that framework.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 May 2025 08:55:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=825517" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 1990 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771718</link>
      <description>An exemption notification allowing fixation of a special value-addition rate was applied on the basis of audited financial records and the statutory auditor&#039;s certificate. The appellant&#039;s audited accounts, cost records and supporting certificates were accepted as showing value addition at 82.29%, because the prescribed computation had been followed. The Commissioner&#039;s attempt to recast the calculation by adding freight subsidy and abnormal waste to material cost was found inconsistent with the relevant accounting method, and the reduced value addition was rejected. The discussion concludes that special rate computation must conform to the notification&#039;s prescribed accounting framework and cannot be altered by loading costs contrary to that framework.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771718</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>