<?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>2008 (9) TMI 713 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124816</link>
    <description>At the stay stage, the composite supply valuation was found prima facie unreliable because the price break-up did not reflect true transaction value, and a cost-based valuation was treated as supportable. Allegations that goods shown as bought from the Goa unit were in fact manufactured at Satara were also supported by the record, while asserted duty payment at Goa was not accepted as a sufficient rebuttal. Escalation bills were treated as prima facie includible in assessable value because no positive evidence showed they had been rejected or left unpaid. The pattern of suppression and account manipulation was considered sufficient to justify invocation of the extended limitation period, and full waiver of pre-deposit was not granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2012 11:10:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=161754" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (9) TMI 713 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124816</link>
      <description>At the stay stage, the composite supply valuation was found prima facie unreliable because the price break-up did not reflect true transaction value, and a cost-based valuation was treated as supportable. Allegations that goods shown as bought from the Goa unit were in fact manufactured at Satara were also supported by the record, while asserted duty payment at Goa was not accepted as a sufficient rebuttal. Escalation bills were treated as prima facie includible in assessable value because no positive evidence showed they had been rejected or left unpaid. The pattern of suppression and account manipulation was considered sufficient to justify invocation of the extended limitation period, and full waiver of pre-deposit was not granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124816</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>