<?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>2002 (1) TMI 117 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51101</link>
    <description>Additional consideration for drawings, designs, tooling, jigs and fixtures could be added to the assessable value of machines only where a direct nexus with the price of each clearance was established, and any such amount had to be amortised clearance-wise because each clearance was a separate assessment. In the absence of the subsequent purchase orders and any finding that their prices were depressed by those supplies, the entire amount could not be loaded into value. The extended limitation period and penalty also failed because the notice contained only vague allegations and lacked adequate particulars of misdeclaration or concealment. The demand and penalty were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Sep 2010 16:33:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89580" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (1) TMI 117 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51101</link>
      <description>Additional consideration for drawings, designs, tooling, jigs and fixtures could be added to the assessable value of machines only where a direct nexus with the price of each clearance was established, and any such amount had to be amortised clearance-wise because each clearance was a separate assessment. In the absence of the subsequent purchase orders and any finding that their prices were depressed by those supplies, the entire amount could not be loaded into value. The extended limitation period and penalty also failed because the notice contained only vague allegations and lacked adequate particulars of misdeclaration or concealment. The demand and penalty were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51101</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>