<?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>2010 (8) TMI 779 - CESTAT-MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127554</link>
    <description>Valuation disputes over clearances to sister units under the Central Excise Valuation Rules were treated as non-recurring and essentially academic where any differential duty would be available as corresponding CENVAT credit to the recipient units. On that revenue-neutral basis, the matter was not examined on merits, and the factual and legal questions were left open because the outcome would not change the revenue position.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2025 13:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164430" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (8) TMI 779 - CESTAT-MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127554</link>
      <description>Valuation disputes over clearances to sister units under the Central Excise Valuation Rules were treated as non-recurring and essentially academic where any differential duty would be available as corresponding CENVAT credit to the recipient units. On that revenue-neutral basis, the matter was not examined on merits, and the factual and legal questions were left open because the outcome would not change the revenue position.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127554</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>