<?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 (10) TMI 162 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50380</link>
    <description>The Tribunal treated the 697NA engine and GBS 40 gear box as optional fitments, not the standard equipment for the 1612 model chassis, because the evidence showed the standard fitments were the 692 DI engine and GBS 30 gear box. The appellant&#039;s price list and technical material were not accepted as conclusive statutory declarations, and the plea of clerical error was rejected. Non-disclosure of the optional fitments to the Department supported the demand, and the higher chassis price did not by itself prove that the extra value related only to those items. Differential duty, cess and penalty were therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Aug 2010 13:24:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88860" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (10) TMI 162 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50380</link>
      <description>The Tribunal treated the 697NA engine and GBS 40 gear box as optional fitments, not the standard equipment for the 1612 model chassis, because the evidence showed the standard fitments were the 692 DI engine and GBS 30 gear box. The appellant&#039;s price list and technical material were not accepted as conclusive statutory declarations, and the plea of clerical error was rejected. Non-disclosure of the optional fitments to the Department supported the demand, and the higher chassis price did not by itself prove that the extra value related only to those items. Differential duty, cess and penalty were therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50380</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>