<?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>1999 (4) TMI 193 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90962</link>
    <description>Where genuine ex-factory sales to unrelated buyers are available, their price may be treated as the proper basis for valuing captive clearances, and the proportion of factory-gate sales is immaterial if those sales are bona fide. On that reasoning, a prima facie case arose against allegations of deliberate undervaluation and intent to defraud revenue at the interim stage. The availability of Modvat credit on duty paid for clearances to the related unit also supported the view that the transactions were revenue-neutral, reducing the basis for invoking the extended period of limitation. The stay application was therefore allowed and recovery was stayed during the pendency of the appeals, subject to the undertaking regarding confiscated assets.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Oct 2011 18:00:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128024" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (4) TMI 193 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90962</link>
      <description>Where genuine ex-factory sales to unrelated buyers are available, their price may be treated as the proper basis for valuing captive clearances, and the proportion of factory-gate sales is immaterial if those sales are bona fide. On that reasoning, a prima facie case arose against allegations of deliberate undervaluation and intent to defraud revenue at the interim stage. The availability of Modvat credit on duty paid for clearances to the related unit also supported the view that the transactions were revenue-neutral, reducing the basis for invoking the extended period of limitation. The stay application was therefore allowed and recovery was stayed during the pendency of the appeals, subject to the undertaking regarding confiscated assets.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90962</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>