<?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>2006 (1) TMI 276 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116775</link>
    <description>Excise duty demand based on alleged undervaluation was unsustainable where the assessee showed negotiated pricing, regular invoices, and a revenue-neutral structure with credit available to the buyer. The burden remained on the Revenue to prove that the invoice price was not the true value, and no cogent evidence was produced to displace the contractual price. The limitation issue also favoured the assessee because the show cause notice was issued long after the relevant period despite departmental awareness of the transactions through regular clearances. With the duty demand failing, the penalties had no independent basis and could not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Jun 2012 15:31:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153773" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (1) TMI 276 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116775</link>
      <description>Excise duty demand based on alleged undervaluation was unsustainable where the assessee showed negotiated pricing, regular invoices, and a revenue-neutral structure with credit available to the buyer. The burden remained on the Revenue to prove that the invoice price was not the true value, and no cogent evidence was produced to displace the contractual price. The limitation issue also favoured the assessee because the show cause notice was issued long after the relevant period despite departmental awareness of the transactions through regular clearances. With the duty demand failing, the penalties had no independent basis and could not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116775</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>