<?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 (8) TMI 527 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114102</link>
    <description>Captive-consumption valuation of slurry and naphtha on a cost-construction basis was examined in the context of a remand order. The record indicated that the assessee had repeatedly sought the cost audit report, that it was not supplied, and that the original authority had accepted price lists supported by Chartered Accountant certificates. The remand was unsustainable because it extended beyond the Department&#039;s grievance by directing a fresh special cost audit for a later period, even though the relevant period was earlier and the factory had closed, and because it did not address other valuation issues or give reasons for requiring another audit. The assessee succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 12:01:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151103" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (8) TMI 527 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114102</link>
      <description>Captive-consumption valuation of slurry and naphtha on a cost-construction basis was examined in the context of a remand order. The record indicated that the assessee had repeatedly sought the cost audit report, that it was not supplied, and that the original authority had accepted price lists supported by Chartered Accountant certificates. The remand was unsustainable because it extended beyond the Department&#039;s grievance by directing a fresh special cost audit for a later period, even though the relevant period was earlier and the factory had closed, and because it did not address other valuation issues or give reasons for requiring another audit. The assessee succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114102</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>