Loading...

⚠ โœ•
❮ Top
☎ Help
Draft upto 3 replies to a
tax notice โ€” FREE ๐ŸŽ‰ โœ•

150 credits ยท 30 days

โ€ข Basic Search โ†’ 1 Credit
โ€ข Advanced Search โ†’ 3 Credits
โ€ข Drafter โ†’ 20 to extract + 25 per issue
(โ‰ˆ upto 2-3 drafts on us)

Already used our earlier 20-Credit Demo?
You are still eligible for this new 150-Credit Demo.

Activate your FREE Demo โ†’
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedbackโœ•

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2002 (2) TMI 474

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)]. - In the present case, the duty demand has arisen on account of the addition of labour cost involved in the replacement of parts during warranty period of tractors, to their assessable value. The learned Counsel has brought to our notice the decision of this Tribunal in the case of TELCO Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ded against the appellant by the Tribunal's decision reported in 2000 (124) E.L.T. 496. The subsequent order in the case of TELCO - 2000 (121) E.L.T. 224 does not specifically deal with the issue of inclusion of labour cost of replacing of parts during warranty period. In these circumstances, it has to be held that the appellant is not having a strong prima facie case on merits of the case. 4.&....