<?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>2003 (12) TMI 522 - CESTAT, mumbai</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113177</link>
    <description>A prior Tribunal finding on durable and returnable packing did not finally determine a later dispute over whether the assessee&#039;s claimed freight and packing deductions matched actual expenditure. Because the demand was based on a comparison of claimed deductions with actual figures, the controversy required fresh factual examination rather than reliance on the earlier order. The adjudication and penalties were therefore set aside and the matter remanded for reconsideration after hearing the assessee on the actual freight and packing costs. A prior finding on packing cost did not bar examination of the later demand on its own factual basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 May 2012 11:55:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150193" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (12) TMI 522 - CESTAT, mumbai</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113177</link>
      <description>A prior Tribunal finding on durable and returnable packing did not finally determine a later dispute over whether the assessee&#039;s claimed freight and packing deductions matched actual expenditure. Because the demand was based on a comparison of claimed deductions with actual figures, the controversy required fresh factual examination rather than reliance on the earlier order. The adjudication and penalties were therefore set aside and the matter remanded for reconsideration after hearing the assessee on the actual freight and packing costs. A prior finding on packing cost did not bar examination of the later demand on its own factual basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113177</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>