<?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 (1) TMI 758 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206723</link>
    <description>Transportation and warehousing charges were held includible in assessable value where the place of removal was treated as the warehouse and the goods were delivered there with those charges collected from customers; the valuation addition was upheld. For alleged clandestine removals through family firms, the duty demand could not be sustained without correlating purchase invoices, sales and seized records, so the matter was remanded for factual re-verification and re-quantification. Penalties on the transporter and warehouse keeper were deleted because mere involvement in movement and storage of goods, without proof of conscious knowledge or participation in duty evasion, was insufficient.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 May 2025 16:17:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=180207" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (1) TMI 758 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206723</link>
      <description>Transportation and warehousing charges were held includible in assessable value where the place of removal was treated as the warehouse and the goods were delivered there with those charges collected from customers; the valuation addition was upheld. For alleged clandestine removals through family firms, the duty demand could not be sustained without correlating purchase invoices, sales and seized records, so the matter was remanded for factual re-verification and re-quantification. Penalties on the transporter and warehouse keeper were deleted because mere involvement in movement and storage of goods, without proof of conscious knowledge or participation in duty evasion, was insufficient.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206723</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>