<?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>2002 (4) TMI 301 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101569</link>
    <description>Captive-consumption valuation was prima facie unsustainable where the claimed factory-gate comparables included additional process costs and were therefore not comparable with the yarn consumed captively. Because that factual finding by the original authority remained unchallenged, the factory-gate price could not be treated as the proper basis for valuation at this stage. On that footing, recovery of the duty demand was stayed pending disposal of the appeal, and further proceedings for recovery were directed not to be taken.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:22:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138618" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (4) TMI 301 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101569</link>
      <description>Captive-consumption valuation was prima facie unsustainable where the claimed factory-gate comparables included additional process costs and were therefore not comparable with the yarn consumed captively. Because that factual finding by the original authority remained unchallenged, the factory-gate price could not be treated as the proper basis for valuation at this stage. On that footing, recovery of the duty demand was stayed pending disposal of the appeal, and further proceedings for recovery were directed not to be taken.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101569</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>