<?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>2000 (9) TMI 849 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE &amp; CUSTOMS (APPEALS)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99838</link>
    <description>Limitation for departmental review was computed from the date the competent Commissioner signed and passed the review order in the file, so the departmental appeals were within time. On valuation, the show cause notices lacked adequate factual particulars and proper market enquiry to sustain comparable-goods valuation; in that setting, the residual cost-based method supported by a Chartered Accountant&#039;s certificate was upheld. The same costing basis was accepted for clearances by a 100% export oriented unit. The Assistant Commissioner&#039;s valuation and the resulting orders were therefore sustained, and no ground was found to interfere.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2012 19:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136890" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (9) TMI 849 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE &amp; CUSTOMS (APPEALS)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99838</link>
      <description>Limitation for departmental review was computed from the date the competent Commissioner signed and passed the review order in the file, so the departmental appeals were within time. On valuation, the show cause notices lacked adequate factual particulars and proper market enquiry to sustain comparable-goods valuation; in that setting, the residual cost-based method supported by a Chartered Accountant&#039;s certificate was upheld. The same costing basis was accepted for clearances by a 100% export oriented unit. The Assistant Commissioner&#039;s valuation and the resulting orders were therefore sustained, and no ground was found to interfere.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99838</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>