<?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 (10) TMI 728 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109751</link>
    <description>The appeal challenged the inclusion of costs of moulds in the assessable value of a glass product, invoking an extended period of limitation and penalty imposition. The Tribunal held that the extended period was not justified due to the unclear legal position at the relevant time, setting aside the demand for duty and penalty. The appeal partially succeeded, directing the Assistant Commissioner to determine the duty payable within the normal period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2012 16:55:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146768" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (10) TMI 728 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109751</link>
      <description>The appeal challenged the inclusion of costs of moulds in the assessable value of a glass product, invoking an extended period of limitation and penalty imposition. The Tribunal held that the extended period was not justified due to the unclear legal position at the relevant time, setting aside the demand for duty and penalty. The appeal partially succeeded, directing the Assistant Commissioner to determine the duty payable within the normal period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109751</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>