<?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 (6) TMI 85 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51321</link>
    <description>Central excise valuation in a job work arrangement must follow the Ujagar Prints principle: assessable value consists of processing charges, covering manufacturing cost plus profit, together with the cost of raw materials supplied by the customer. The earlier Tribunal view in Pawan Biscuit Company, treating the arrangement as principal-agent, had been reversed by the Supreme Court, which held such agreements to be on a principal-to-principal basis. On the facts stated, the assessee had already paid duty on the correct valuation basis and the Revenue did not dispute it, so the duty demand and consequential penalty were not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:43:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89799" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (6) TMI 85 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51321</link>
      <description>Central excise valuation in a job work arrangement must follow the Ujagar Prints principle: assessable value consists of processing charges, covering manufacturing cost plus profit, together with the cost of raw materials supplied by the customer. The earlier Tribunal view in Pawan Biscuit Company, treating the arrangement as principal-agent, had been reversed by the Supreme Court, which held such agreements to be on a principal-to-principal basis. On the facts stated, the assessee had already paid duty on the correct valuation basis and the Revenue did not dispute it, so the duty demand and consequential penalty were not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51321</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>