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

2015 (10) TMI 1958

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for the Appellant. Shri R. Gurunathan, Addl. Commissioner, AR, for the Respondent. ORDER Appellant is engaged in manufacture and export of polished granite slabs. A portion of the manufactured granite slabs which were rejected have been cleared in the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) in terms of Notification No. 8/97-C.E. on payment of duty. The appellant is a 100% EOU. A dispute has arisen in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... on the decision in the case of Thermax Ltd. v. CCE - 1998 (99) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.) wherein it was held that installation, erection and commissioning charges for equipment installed at customers premises is not includable in the assessable value of the equipment. 4. Learned AR would submit that this is an additional consideration and it has to be added to the assessable value. Further, he al....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....able value, it should be flowing from the buyer to the assessee in connection with the sale of such goods. The claim of the appellants that they were selling the rejected items to all the customers at the same price, has not been contradicted. There is also no allegation that the quality of materials supplied to these three buyers is different. There is also no allegation that the job work was und....