<?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 (2) TMI 332 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54007</link>
    <description>Valuation of excisable goods manufactured by a job worker remains governed by the settled factory-gate principle: the job worker&#039;s premises are treated as the deemed factory gate, and assessable value is determined there rather than by reference to the principal manufacturer&#039;s later depot sale price. The transaction value concept did not alter that position, and the valuation rules apply only in their prescribed circumstances. Where the dispute rests solely on substituting the principal&#039;s depot price, without any allegation of undervaluation by omission of cost elements, that substitution is impermissible and the related demand, penalty and interest cannot be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Oct 2010 13:16:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92484" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 332 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54007</link>
      <description>Valuation of excisable goods manufactured by a job worker remains governed by the settled factory-gate principle: the job worker&#039;s premises are treated as the deemed factory gate, and assessable value is determined there rather than by reference to the principal manufacturer&#039;s later depot sale price. The transaction value concept did not alter that position, and the valuation rules apply only in their prescribed circumstances. Where the dispute rests solely on substituting the principal&#039;s depot price, without any allegation of undervaluation by omission of cost elements, that substitution is impermissible and the related demand, penalty and interest cannot be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54007</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>