<?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 (7) TMI 153 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54184</link>
    <description>Charges recovered separately by debit notes for development and maintenance of design and artwork were treated as part of the assessable value of printed flexible packaging laminates because the record did not show that those amounts had already been absorbed through amortisation in the invoice value. Separate customer payments for the invoice price and debit-note amounts supported inclusion in assessable value. The material also showed non-disclosure of the additional recoveries in assessment documents, so the ingredients for penalty based on suppression of facts and evasion of duty were satisfied. On that reasoning, duty demand and penalty were both upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Oct 2010 14:21:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92661" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (7) TMI 153 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54184</link>
      <description>Charges recovered separately by debit notes for development and maintenance of design and artwork were treated as part of the assessable value of printed flexible packaging laminates because the record did not show that those amounts had already been absorbed through amortisation in the invoice value. Separate customer payments for the invoice price and debit-note amounts supported inclusion in assessable value. The material also showed non-disclosure of the additional recoveries in assessment documents, so the ingredients for penalty based on suppression of facts and evasion of duty were satisfied. On that reasoning, duty demand and penalty were both upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54184</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>