<?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 711 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210546</link>
    <description>The dispute concerned whether the buyer and seller were related persons and, on that basis, whether the valuation and penalty could be sustained. As the order under challenge contained no merits-based finding on the relationship issue or the proper basis of valuation, and the earlier remand had not resulted in a substantive determination of the core question, the matter was sent back for fresh adjudication. The original authority was directed to hear the assessee and decide the issue anew. No opinion on merits was expressed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=183980" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (8) TMI 711 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210546</link>
      <description>The dispute concerned whether the buyer and seller were related persons and, on that basis, whether the valuation and penalty could be sustained. As the order under challenge contained no merits-based finding on the relationship issue or the proper basis of valuation, and the earlier remand had not resulted in a substantive determination of the core question, the matter was sent back for fresh adjudication. The original authority was directed to hear the assessee and decide the issue anew. No opinion on merits was expressed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210546</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>