<?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 (8) TMI 429 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119960</link>
    <description>Transfer charges collected for dedicated storage tanks and pipelines were held includible in the assessable value of LAB feedstock because the facilities were dedicated fixed assets used in storage and delivery of the goods, making the charges part of the value under Section 4 rather than a post-manufacture transportation expense. The extended period of limitation was also held invocable because the separate invoicing of those charges was not disclosed to the Department and the record supported suppression of material facts with intent. The penalty was reduced as excessive, and the demand for the normal period and applicability of Section 11AC were remitted for requantification and fresh decision after hearing the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Jul 2012 13:15:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=156956" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (8) TMI 429 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119960</link>
      <description>Transfer charges collected for dedicated storage tanks and pipelines were held includible in the assessable value of LAB feedstock because the facilities were dedicated fixed assets used in storage and delivery of the goods, making the charges part of the value under Section 4 rather than a post-manufacture transportation expense. The extended period of limitation was also held invocable because the separate invoicing of those charges was not disclosed to the Department and the record supported suppression of material facts with intent. The penalty was reduced as excessive, and the demand for the normal period and applicability of Section 11AC were remitted for requantification and fresh decision after hearing the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119960</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>