<?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>1989 (7) TMI 130 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI-LB</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48694</link>
    <description>Free-supplied malleable cast iron inserts provided by the buyer were held includible in the assessable value of concrete sleepers because the exemption applied only where the invoice price reflected the actual sole consideration for sale and was not depressed by contractual arrangements. The valuation of the inserts at Rs. 18.00 was upheld because no reliable material showed a lower real money value, and the admitted lack of correct price information supported the adjudicating authority&#039;s estimate. Non-disclosure of the Railway contract and the free supply of inserts in the declaration and invoices amounted to suppression of facts, so the extended period of limitation applied and the duty demand was within time.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jul 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Nov 2023 15:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87174" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (7) TMI 130 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI-LB</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48694</link>
      <description>Free-supplied malleable cast iron inserts provided by the buyer were held includible in the assessable value of concrete sleepers because the exemption applied only where the invoice price reflected the actual sole consideration for sale and was not depressed by contractual arrangements. The valuation of the inserts at Rs. 18.00 was upheld because no reliable material showed a lower real money value, and the admitted lack of correct price information supported the adjudicating authority&#039;s estimate. Non-disclosure of the Railway contract and the free supply of inserts in the declaration and invoices amounted to suppression of facts, so the extended period of limitation applied and the duty demand was within time.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jul 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48694</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>