Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI Drafter

Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.

Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review

The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.

• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required


Step 2 – Draft Generation

Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.

• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review.

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

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 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

Assessable value determination upheld based on landed cost & processing charges. No suppression of facts found. Appeal allowed in part.

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The Appellate Tribunal addressed the issue of determining assessable value u/s 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, including landed cost and processing charges. Citing Supreme Court precedent and CBEC circulars, duty was upheld based on landed cost. The Tribunal noted that the selling price at times exceeded landed cost, with duty paid on the higher value. Regarding time limitation, the Tribunal found no suppression of facts as the appellant regularly submitted required documents. Referring to a Supreme Court case, it was held that invoking the proviso to Section 11A requires evidence of fraud or willful evasion, which was not present. The order confirmed duty for the normal period only, partially allowing the appeal.....