<?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 (10) TMI 349 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120662</link>
    <description>Excise valuation must treat the invoice or clearance price as cum-duty price, so the duty element is deductible when determining assessable value under the Central Excise Act, even if duty was not actually paid at clearance. The commentary also states that an adjudicating authority cannot delegate final determination of duty liability to a subordinate officer: the Commissioner had to finalise the demand himself, using the Assistant Commissioner&#039;s exercise only as material for quantification. Because the duty demand had not been finally worked out, the penalty could not be sustained and the matter required fresh adjudication after proper quantification and hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2012 13:48:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=157657" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (10) TMI 349 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120662</link>
      <description>Excise valuation must treat the invoice or clearance price as cum-duty price, so the duty element is deductible when determining assessable value under the Central Excise Act, even if duty was not actually paid at clearance. The commentary also states that an adjudicating authority cannot delegate final determination of duty liability to a subordinate officer: the Commissioner had to finalise the demand himself, using the Assistant Commissioner&#039;s exercise only as material for quantification. Because the duty demand had not been finally worked out, the penalty could not be sustained and the matter required fresh adjudication after proper quantification and hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120662</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>