<?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 (11) TMI 153 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54864</link>
    <description>Provisional assessment remains operative until a proper final assessment is made under Rule 9B(5); on that footing, recovery proceedings based on an assumed finalisation are premature. The text also emphasises that valuation must be confined to the excisable goods actually manufactured and removed from the factory, and cannot be taken from a composite commercial invoice covering bought-out items, other-unit supplies, and incidental services. Because the adjudication did not separate excisable from non-excisable or separately supplied elements, the duty demand and penalties were vitiated. The matter was therefore remitted for fresh finalisation in accordance with law and the contractual documents.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Oct 2010 14:50:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=93340" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (11) TMI 153 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54864</link>
      <description>Provisional assessment remains operative until a proper final assessment is made under Rule 9B(5); on that footing, recovery proceedings based on an assumed finalisation are premature. The text also emphasises that valuation must be confined to the excisable goods actually manufactured and removed from the factory, and cannot be taken from a composite commercial invoice covering bought-out items, other-unit supplies, and incidental services. Because the adjudication did not separate excisable from non-excisable or separately supplied elements, the duty demand and penalties were vitiated. The matter was therefore remitted for fresh finalisation in accordance with law and the contractual documents.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54864</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>