<?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 667 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206882</link>
    <description>Rule 57CC and Rule 57AD were applied to determine the amount payable on captively consumed rectified spirit used in manufacturing country liquor. The relevant valuation could be based on the sale price of ethyl alcohol of the same class or group cleared at the factory gate, because the rule referred to goods of the same class or group rather than an identical item. The absence of a separate sale price for the captively consumed quantity did not defeat the computation, and the objection that no sale was involved was rejected on the facts. The respondent was therefore treated as having correctly discharged the amount payable, and the revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=180365" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (3) TMI 667 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206882</link>
      <description>Rule 57CC and Rule 57AD were applied to determine the amount payable on captively consumed rectified spirit used in manufacturing country liquor. The relevant valuation could be based on the sale price of ethyl alcohol of the same class or group cleared at the factory gate, because the rule referred to goods of the same class or group rather than an identical item. The absence of a separate sale price for the captively consumed quantity did not defeat the computation, and the objection that no sale was involved was rejected on the facts. The respondent was therefore treated as having correctly discharged the amount payable, and the revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206882</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>