<?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 (9) TMI 128 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50050</link>
    <description>In valuing goods manufactured on job-work basis, a separate notional profit addition over and above agreed job charges is not justified unless the department proves that the job-worker received additional consideration beyond those charges. The Tribunal relied on prior decisions and the Board&#039;s view that job-work charges ordinarily include the job-worker&#039;s profit element. As the Revenue made only a general allegation and failed to show any extra flow of funds or other consideration to the job-worker, the proposed 10% profit addition was held unsustainable and the valuation adopted by the lower authorities could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Aug 2010 13:53:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88530" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (9) TMI 128 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50050</link>
      <description>In valuing goods manufactured on job-work basis, a separate notional profit addition over and above agreed job charges is not justified unless the department proves that the job-worker received additional consideration beyond those charges. The Tribunal relied on prior decisions and the Board&#039;s view that job-work charges ordinarily include the job-worker&#039;s profit element. As the Revenue made only a general allegation and failed to show any extra flow of funds or other consideration to the job-worker, the proposed 10% profit addition was held unsustainable and the valuation adopted by the lower authorities could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50050</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>