<?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 (5) TMI 99 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51245</link>
    <description>Under Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 5 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975, the duty element on Modvat-covered input rails supplied free of cost was held not to form part of the assessable value of railway points and crossings. The Tribunal applied the principle that the excise duty component on input material is not added again in valuation, and rejected any distinction between purchased inputs and free-supplied inputs. It further held that scrap sale proceeds from the same rails were not separately includible as additional consideration, because the contract treated the scrap as non-returnable, the value basis had already absorbed the quantity involved, and duty had been paid on the scrap.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Sep 2010 16:14:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89724" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (5) TMI 99 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51245</link>
      <description>Under Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 5 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975, the duty element on Modvat-covered input rails supplied free of cost was held not to form part of the assessable value of railway points and crossings. The Tribunal applied the principle that the excise duty component on input material is not added again in valuation, and rejected any distinction between purchased inputs and free-supplied inputs. It further held that scrap sale proceeds from the same rails were not separately includible as additional consideration, because the contract treated the scrap as non-returnable, the value basis had already absorbed the quantity involved, and duty had been paid on the scrap.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51245</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>