<?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>2011 (3) TMI 283 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204111</link>
    <description>The Tribunal interpreted Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, holding that when goods are sold to independent buyers at the time and place of removal, Rule 7 does not apply. The assessable value should be determined under Rule 4 based on factory gate sales to independent buyers. The matter was remanded for a fresh decision considering duty payments. The Tribunal rejected the time bar defense for demands related to different consignments due to insufficient sales information provided by the appellants. Failure to submit detailed invoices hindered accurate assessment, leading to dismissal of the time bar defense. The appeals were allowed for remand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2016 15:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=177655" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (3) TMI 283 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204111</link>
      <description>The Tribunal interpreted Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, holding that when goods are sold to independent buyers at the time and place of removal, Rule 7 does not apply. The assessable value should be determined under Rule 4 based on factory gate sales to independent buyers. The matter was remanded for a fresh decision considering duty payments. The Tribunal rejected the time bar defense for demands related to different consignments due to insufficient sales information provided by the appellants. Failure to submit detailed invoices hindered accurate assessment, leading to dismissal of the time bar defense. The appeals were allowed for remand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204111</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>