<?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 374 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54530</link>
    <description>Lagging sheets were held to be valued under CAS-4 on the manufactured goods alone, so servicing cost and servicing profit could not be added; that valuation issue was remanded for fresh decision. Repacking of imported or bulk-purchased solution was treated as a dutiable process under the tariff and chapter note, so the duty demand was sustained. A demand based on the allegation that Saroth Bonds was a dummy unit failed because an earlier final adjudication had already recognised it as a separate unit. Penalties on the directors were set aside for lack of personal culpability, while the assessee&#039;s penalty was retained in reduced form.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Oct 2010 16:07:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=93007" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (3) TMI 374 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54530</link>
      <description>Lagging sheets were held to be valued under CAS-4 on the manufactured goods alone, so servicing cost and servicing profit could not be added; that valuation issue was remanded for fresh decision. Repacking of imported or bulk-purchased solution was treated as a dutiable process under the tariff and chapter note, so the duty demand was sustained. A demand based on the allegation that Saroth Bonds was a dummy unit failed because an earlier final adjudication had already recognised it as a separate unit. Penalties on the directors were set aside for lack of personal culpability, while the assessee&#039;s penalty was retained in reduced form.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54530</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>