<?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>2004 (2) TMI 392 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110695</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the order of valuation and duty demand based on the interpretation of the valuation rules under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. The highest price marked on the product was considered for valuation, leading to the appellant&#039;s appeal being partly allowed in favor of the Revenue. Penalties were set aside as the demands were within the normal period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2012 12:30:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147711" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (2) TMI 392 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110695</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the order of valuation and duty demand based on the interpretation of the valuation rules under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. The highest price marked on the product was considered for valuation, leading to the appellant&#039;s appeal being partly allowed in favor of the Revenue. Penalties were set aside as the demands were within the normal period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110695</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>