<?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 (9) TMI 466 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117014</link>
    <description>Amounts recovered as interest on delayed payments from credit customers are not includible in the assessable value of excisable goods where the cash and credit sale prices are the same and the recovery is made only after the sale; the excess interest recovered beyond normal receivable adjustment is therefore outside the duty base. The extended limitation period under section 11A cannot be invoked where the issue had already been decided in the assessee&#039;s favour by departmental authorities and there was no suppression with intent to evade duty. The transportation-charges question required fresh factual verification because the existing findings were inconsistent, so that issue was remanded for reconsideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2012 15:37:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154012" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (9) TMI 466 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117014</link>
      <description>Amounts recovered as interest on delayed payments from credit customers are not includible in the assessable value of excisable goods where the cash and credit sale prices are the same and the recovery is made only after the sale; the excess interest recovered beyond normal receivable adjustment is therefore outside the duty base. The extended limitation period under section 11A cannot be invoked where the issue had already been decided in the assessee&#039;s favour by departmental authorities and there was no suppression with intent to evade duty. The transportation-charges question required fresh factual verification because the existing findings were inconsistent, so that issue was remanded for reconsideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117014</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>