<?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 222 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53942</link>
    <description>Where the Revenue treats the principal under a loan-licence arrangement as the manufacturer, central excise duty cannot be fastened on the job-worker because the manufacturer identified by the Department remains the assessee. For medicines manufactured on job work, assessable value is not to be determined under Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules merely by reference to the principal&#039;s depot sale price; the proper approach is the settled cost-based job-work valuation principle. The text states that Board clarification and Tribunal precedent support this position, and that the demand and penalty could not be sustained against the job-worker.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Oct 2010 10:39:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92419" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (3) TMI 222 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53942</link>
      <description>Where the Revenue treats the principal under a loan-licence arrangement as the manufacturer, central excise duty cannot be fastened on the job-worker because the manufacturer identified by the Department remains the assessee. For medicines manufactured on job work, assessable value is not to be determined under Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules merely by reference to the principal&#039;s depot sale price; the proper approach is the settled cost-based job-work valuation principle. The text states that Board clarification and Tribunal precedent support this position, and that the demand and penalty could not be sustained against the job-worker.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53942</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>