<?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 (12) TMI 377 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117177</link>
    <description>The appellate tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order, dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal. The tribunal accepted the valuation under Section 4(1)(a) based on prices declared by the respondent in wholesale trade, finding no contestation by the department. The judgment emphasized consistent pricing practices and the use of audited balance sheets for valuation under the Central Excise Act 1944, rejecting claims of undervaluation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:54:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154175" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (12) TMI 377 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117177</link>
      <description>The appellate tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order, dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal. The tribunal accepted the valuation under Section 4(1)(a) based on prices declared by the respondent in wholesale trade, finding no contestation by the department. The judgment emphasized consistent pricing practices and the use of audited balance sheets for valuation under the Central Excise Act 1944, rejecting claims of undervaluation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117177</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>