<?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 (8) TMI 436 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97241</link>
    <description>At the interim stay stage, limitation and valuation were treated as substantial prima facie issues in a dispute over duty and penalties. The order distinguished one earlier period from the remaining period, noting that the valuation for later years depended on cost audit figures not available at the start of the financial year and that the department had earlier accepted the declared figures and finalised RT-12 returns on that basis. On that material, the plea of limitation was prima facie accepted for the remaining period, while it was not prima facie available for the earlier year. A substantial predeposit was accepted and waiver of the balance duty and penalties was granted, with the appeal to continue subject to the limited deposit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 10:40:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134299" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (8) TMI 436 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97241</link>
      <description>At the interim stay stage, limitation and valuation were treated as substantial prima facie issues in a dispute over duty and penalties. The order distinguished one earlier period from the remaining period, noting that the valuation for later years depended on cost audit figures not available at the start of the financial year and that the department had earlier accepted the declared figures and finalised RT-12 returns on that basis. On that material, the plea of limitation was prima facie accepted for the remaining period, while it was not prima facie available for the earlier year. A substantial predeposit was accepted and waiver of the balance duty and penalties was granted, with the appeal to continue subject to the limited deposit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97241</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>