<?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>2003 (7) TMI 107 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51919</link>
    <description>Buyer-related post-manufacture inspection of fully manufactured sleepers, carried out after entry in RG-1 and without any inspection charge being paid or received, could not be treated as an activity incidental or ancillary to manufacture, so notional testing or inspection charges were excluded from assessable value. The demand was also held time-barred because the show cause notice was issued beyond the normal period and the relevant contractual facts were already within departmental knowledge; suppression could not be alleged on that basis. As the demand itself failed on limitation, interest and personal penalty also fell away, and the consequential duty demand was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Sep 2010 12:09:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90397" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (7) TMI 107 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51919</link>
      <description>Buyer-related post-manufacture inspection of fully manufactured sleepers, carried out after entry in RG-1 and without any inspection charge being paid or received, could not be treated as an activity incidental or ancillary to manufacture, so notional testing or inspection charges were excluded from assessable value. The demand was also held time-barred because the show cause notice was issued beyond the normal period and the relevant contractual facts were already within departmental knowledge; suppression could not be alleged on that basis. As the demand itself failed on limitation, interest and personal penalty also fell away, and the consequential duty demand was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51919</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>