<?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 (9) TMI 193 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54795</link>
    <description>Extended limitation under the proviso to section 11A(1) was unavailable because the valuation dispute had already been in controversy and the assessee had disclosed its working, so no suppression of material facts was established and the demands were time-barred to that extent. In job-work valuation of compact discs, the music companies&#039; wholesale sale price could not be used as the assessable value because the goods were manufactured on specific contracts and were not comparable in the relevant valuation sense; the proper approach was cost-based valuation. The discussion also notes that royalty, copyright-related costs, stamper value and supplied inputs had to be considered within true manufacturing cost, and that penalties could not survive where the valuation basis and demand failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:57:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=93272" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (9) TMI 193 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54795</link>
      <description>Extended limitation under the proviso to section 11A(1) was unavailable because the valuation dispute had already been in controversy and the assessee had disclosed its working, so no suppression of material facts was established and the demands were time-barred to that extent. In job-work valuation of compact discs, the music companies&#039; wholesale sale price could not be used as the assessable value because the goods were manufactured on specific contracts and were not comparable in the relevant valuation sense; the proper approach was cost-based valuation. The discussion also notes that royalty, copyright-related costs, stamper value and supplied inputs had to be considered within true manufacturing cost, and that penalties could not survive where the valuation basis and demand failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54795</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>