<?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 (4) TMI 526 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118703</link>
    <description>CESTAT, New Delhi held that central excise duty could not be sustained on an average-weight basis where the assessee maintained contemporaneous records of receipt, issue, closing balance and actual consumption of tin plates used in job-work manufacture of tin containers. Because the actual receipts and balances in the private records were not disputed, the assessable value could not be recomputed by substituting estimated averages for recorded consumption. The differential duty had also been paid before the show cause notice after the mistake was pointed out. On these facts, the duty demand and the penalty were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Jul 2012 11:58:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=155700" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (4) TMI 526 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118703</link>
      <description>CESTAT, New Delhi held that central excise duty could not be sustained on an average-weight basis where the assessee maintained contemporaneous records of receipt, issue, closing balance and actual consumption of tin plates used in job-work manufacture of tin containers. Because the actual receipts and balances in the private records were not disputed, the assessable value could not be recomputed by substituting estimated averages for recorded consumption. The differential duty had also been paid before the show cause notice after the mistake was pointed out. On these facts, the duty demand and the penalty were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118703</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>