<?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>2001 (1) TMI 509 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95911</link>
    <description>Where factory gate sales are available, factory gate price remains the relevant basis for excise valuation even if depot sales also exist. The presence of depot sales does not, by itself, displace factory gate pricing for Central Excise purposes. The Tribunal further held that the department cannot support a valuation challenge on a ground not set out in the show cause notice, and an allegation that trade discount was not actually passed on could not be raised for the first time in appeal. Reliance on Madras Rubber Factory was found inapplicable on the facts, as the dispute involved both factory gate and depot sales and the department&#039;s case went beyond the notice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Dec 2011 17:51:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132970" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (1) TMI 509 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95911</link>
      <description>Where factory gate sales are available, factory gate price remains the relevant basis for excise valuation even if depot sales also exist. The presence of depot sales does not, by itself, displace factory gate pricing for Central Excise purposes. The Tribunal further held that the department cannot support a valuation challenge on a ground not set out in the show cause notice, and an allegation that trade discount was not actually passed on could not be raised for the first time in appeal. Reliance on Madras Rubber Factory was found inapplicable on the facts, as the dispute involved both factory gate and depot sales and the department&#039;s case went beyond the notice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95911</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>