<?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>2000 (3) TMI 74 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48771</link>
    <description>Buyer-supplied moulds essential to manufacture were treated as additional consideration where the finished-goods price reflected that supply, so the proportionate money value of the moulds was includible in the assessable value of the plastic components. However, the demand failed on limitation because the assessee had filed classification and price lists and disclosed the relevant contractual particulars, leaving no suppression or concealment to justify the extended period. The valuation principle was therefore applied against the assessee, but the assessment and demand could not be sustained because the claim was time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2025 10:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87251" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (3) TMI 74 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48771</link>
      <description>Buyer-supplied moulds essential to manufacture were treated as additional consideration where the finished-goods price reflected that supply, so the proportionate money value of the moulds was includible in the assessable value of the plastic components. However, the demand failed on limitation because the assessee had filed classification and price lists and disclosed the relevant contractual particulars, leaving no suppression or concealment to justify the extended period. The valuation principle was therefore applied against the assessee, but the assessment and demand could not be sustained because the claim was time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48771</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>