<?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 (12) TMI 261 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91303</link>
    <description>Differential valuation of industrial and commercial brass rods and wires turned on whether the two grades were in fact different and whether that difference justified the price variation. The lower appellate authority failed to address that core factual question and instead relied on the absence of separate declaration and accounting, despite record material showing separate price lists and separate accounting entries. Because the evidence then available was insufficient to finally resolve the dispute, the order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration by the Commissioner (Appeals), with liberty to both sides to adduce additional evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2011 12:00:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128365" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (12) TMI 261 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91303</link>
      <description>Differential valuation of industrial and commercial brass rods and wires turned on whether the two grades were in fact different and whether that difference justified the price variation. The lower appellate authority failed to address that core factual question and instead relied on the absence of separate declaration and accounting, despite record material showing separate price lists and separate accounting entries. Because the evidence then available was insufficient to finally resolve the dispute, the order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration by the Commissioner (Appeals), with liberty to both sides to adduce additional evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91303</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>