<?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>2026 (3) TMI 1446 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788691</link>
    <description>Amortised cost of moulds and dies supplied free of cost by customers, or retained in the assessee&#039;s factory, was held includible in the assessable value of aluminium die-cast components because Section 4 of the Central Excise Act and Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules require additional consideration, including buyer-supplied tools, to be added to transaction value. The dispute on valuation was upheld, but the extended limitation period could not be invoked since the relevant facts were reflected in records and no suppression, wilful misstatement, fraud, or intent to evade duty was established. Penalty under Section 11AC was therefore not sustainable and was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2026 08:52:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=893267" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (3) TMI 1446 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788691</link>
      <description>Amortised cost of moulds and dies supplied free of cost by customers, or retained in the assessee&#039;s factory, was held includible in the assessable value of aluminium die-cast components because Section 4 of the Central Excise Act and Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules require additional consideration, including buyer-supplied tools, to be added to transaction value. The dispute on valuation was upheld, but the extended limitation period could not be invoked since the relevant facts were reflected in records and no suppression, wilful misstatement, fraud, or intent to evade duty was established. Penalty under Section 11AC was therefore not sustainable and was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788691</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>