<?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 (6) TMI 382 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202123</link>
    <description>Retail pump outlet charges were excluded from the assessable value of oil because the valuation issue was already settled by binding precedent approved by the Supreme Court. Duty on storage losses was also unsustainable because the Board&#039;s guidelines permitted condonation within the prescribed ceiling, and the evidence showed losses below 0.5% with no mala fide intent. The impugned order was set aside and consequential relief followed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2011 15:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=175712" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (6) TMI 382 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202123</link>
      <description>Retail pump outlet charges were excluded from the assessable value of oil because the valuation issue was already settled by binding precedent approved by the Supreme Court. Duty on storage losses was also unsustainable because the Board&#039;s guidelines permitted condonation within the prescribed ceiling, and the evidence showed losses below 0.5% with no mala fide intent. The impugned order was set aside and consequential relief followed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202123</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>