<?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>2009 (5) TMI 801 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127896</link>
    <description>Inter-unit clearances of PSC pipes between concerns with common partners were not eligible for captive-consumption valuation because the receiving unit did not use the goods to manufacture another article. Value therefore had to be redetermined under the residual best-judgment mechanism under the applicable valuation rules and Section 4, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication. The demand for April 1998 to December 1998 was also held time-barred because earlier notices on identical facts had already been issued within limitation, the relevant facts were known to the department, and suppression could not be invoked to extend limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Mar 2013 15:38:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164770" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (5) TMI 801 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127896</link>
      <description>Inter-unit clearances of PSC pipes between concerns with common partners were not eligible for captive-consumption valuation because the receiving unit did not use the goods to manufacture another article. Value therefore had to be redetermined under the residual best-judgment mechanism under the applicable valuation rules and Section 4, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication. The demand for April 1998 to December 1998 was also held time-barred because earlier notices on identical facts had already been issued within limitation, the relevant facts were known to the department, and suppression could not be invoked to extend limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127896</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>