<?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>2005 (3) TMI 216 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53935</link>
    <description>For pre-recorded audio cassettes manufactured on job work basis, the value of audio tape, inlay cards and screen printing frames supplied free of cost by customers was held includible in assessable value because such inputs were integral to the finished excisable product. The Tribunal also treated non-inclusion of those free supplies as suppression, holding the extended period of limitation available to the Department. At the same time, the duty demand and penalties were not finally sustained in their quantified form because the basis of quantification required re-examination; the matter was remanded for fresh re-quantification on a lawful valuation basis and reconsideration of penalties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2024 12:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92412" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (3) TMI 216 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53935</link>
      <description>For pre-recorded audio cassettes manufactured on job work basis, the value of audio tape, inlay cards and screen printing frames supplied free of cost by customers was held includible in assessable value because such inputs were integral to the finished excisable product. The Tribunal also treated non-inclusion of those free supplies as suppression, holding the extended period of limitation available to the Department. At the same time, the duty demand and penalties were not finally sustained in their quantified form because the basis of quantification required re-examination; the matter was remanded for fresh re-quantification on a lawful valuation basis and reconsideration of penalties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53935</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>