<?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>2005 (8) TMI 468 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116488</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found the assessee and M/s. Petro Araldite Private Limited to be related persons under the Central Excise Act due to mutual interest, directing valuation under Section 4(1)(b). The Tribunal emphasized Rule 11 application for determining the assessable value of Epichlorohydrin, remanding the case for reassessment. Both assessee and Revenue appeals were allowed for fresh adjudication in line with the Tribunal&#039;s decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Jun 2012 18:46:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153486" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (8) TMI 468 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116488</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found the assessee and M/s. Petro Araldite Private Limited to be related persons under the Central Excise Act due to mutual interest, directing valuation under Section 4(1)(b). The Tribunal emphasized Rule 11 application for determining the assessable value of Epichlorohydrin, remanding the case for reassessment. Both assessee and Revenue appeals were allowed for fresh adjudication in line with the Tribunal&#039;s decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116488</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>