<?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 (9) TMI 400 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207640</link>
    <description>Captive clearances to a sister concern were to be valued on a cost-construction basis under the applicable valuation rules, but the adjudicating authority proceeded ex parte and the valuation adopted was challenged. A cost accountant&#039;s certificate produced before the Commissioner (Appeals) contained figures that did not match data earlier furnished during investigation, so the additional evidence required proper verification against the departmental record. The appellate order was therefore unsustainable without fresh examination of the evidence and a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for de novo decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 07:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=181116" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (9) TMI 400 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207640</link>
      <description>Captive clearances to a sister concern were to be valued on a cost-construction basis under the applicable valuation rules, but the adjudicating authority proceeded ex parte and the valuation adopted was challenged. A cost accountant&#039;s certificate produced before the Commissioner (Appeals) contained figures that did not match data earlier furnished during investigation, so the additional evidence required proper verification against the departmental record. The appellate order was therefore unsustainable without fresh examination of the evidence and a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for de novo decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207640</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>