<?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 (8) TMI 667 - CESTAT, DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210472</link>
    <description>Where excisable goods were sold both to related persons and to independent buyers, Rule 4 required assessable value to be based on the price charged to independent buyers for the same goods. The Tribunal followed its own earlier view and supporting appellate precedent, and held that valuation had to be reworked on that basis. As the record also required verification of whether duty had already been discharged on the independent buyer price, the matter was remanded for fresh quantification after hearing the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Jan 2012 14:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=183906" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (8) TMI 667 - CESTAT, DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210472</link>
      <description>Where excisable goods were sold both to related persons and to independent buyers, Rule 4 required assessable value to be based on the price charged to independent buyers for the same goods. The Tribunal followed its own earlier view and supporting appellate precedent, and held that valuation had to be reworked on that basis. As the record also required verification of whether duty had already been discharged on the independent buyer price, the matter was remanded for fresh quantification after hearing the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210472</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>