<?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>1998 (3) TMI 290 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88569</link>
    <description>Assessable value of toaster parts captively consumed had to be determined under the appropriate Central Excise (Valuation) Rules basis, but the record did not establish whether identical goods had been sold to wholesale dealers during the relevant period. If such wholesale sales existed, the sale price would be relevant for valuation under Rule 6(b)(i); if not, another valuation basis would apply under the rules. Because the show cause notice was unavailable and the material was incomplete on this key factual question, the valuation could not be finally determined on the existing record. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the adjudicating authority for fresh verification and decision after hearing the respondent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2011 17:05:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125634" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (3) TMI 290 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88569</link>
      <description>Assessable value of toaster parts captively consumed had to be determined under the appropriate Central Excise (Valuation) Rules basis, but the record did not establish whether identical goods had been sold to wholesale dealers during the relevant period. If such wholesale sales existed, the sale price would be relevant for valuation under Rule 6(b)(i); if not, another valuation basis would apply under the rules. Because the show cause notice was unavailable and the material was incomplete on this key factual question, the valuation could not be finally determined on the existing record. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the adjudicating authority for fresh verification and decision after hearing the respondent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88569</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>