<?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 (10) TMI 179 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52437</link>
    <description>Imported dental hand-pieces and related equipment supplied separately, and not assembled or fitted into the dental chairs by the assessee, were treated as a distinct trading supply rather than part of the manufacturing process. The chairs had their own controls, the hand-pieces were sometimes supplied independently of the chair, and the digital pulp tester was self-contained and not required to be integrated with the chair. On those facts, the value of goods supplied only in separate trade could not be added to the assessable value of the manufactured dental chairs. The exclusion of that value was upheld in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Oct 2010 18:11:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90914" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (10) TMI 179 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52437</link>
      <description>Imported dental hand-pieces and related equipment supplied separately, and not assembled or fitted into the dental chairs by the assessee, were treated as a distinct trading supply rather than part of the manufacturing process. The chairs had their own controls, the hand-pieces were sometimes supplied independently of the chair, and the digital pulp tester was self-contained and not required to be integrated with the chair. On those facts, the value of goods supplied only in separate trade could not be added to the assessable value of the manufactured dental chairs. The exclusion of that value was upheld in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52437</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>