<?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 (3) TMI 866 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108683</link>
    <description>A rectification of mistake application cannot be used to introduce a new contention that additional amounts were collected over and above the factory sale invoices in order to reopen assessable value. The Tribunal noted that the adjudication order did not rest on any finding of extra collection; instead, the revised assessable value was worked out from depot sale prices after deductions. Because the alleged over-collection issue was not part of the original controversy, raising it in rectification exceeded the permissible scope of the application. The application was therefore not maintainable on the grounds urged and was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Apr 2012 13:04:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145700" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (3) TMI 866 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108683</link>
      <description>A rectification of mistake application cannot be used to introduce a new contention that additional amounts were collected over and above the factory sale invoices in order to reopen assessable value. The Tribunal noted that the adjudication order did not rest on any finding of extra collection; instead, the revised assessable value was worked out from depot sale prices after deductions. Because the alleged over-collection issue was not part of the original controversy, raising it in rectification exceeded the permissible scope of the application. The application was therefore not maintainable on the grounds urged and was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108683</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>