<?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>2012 (10) TMI 382 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217442</link>
    <description>Provisional assessment was validly finalised despite delay because no statutory time limit barred completion, and the show-cause notice was not mandatory where natural justice was otherwise observed; the finalisation was upheld. In valuation, the accepted factory-gate sale price could not be disturbed by reducing the full deduction for returnable crate rental without evidence that the claimed amount was inflated or that related-person pricing existed, so the partial addition failed. Advertisement charges and notional interest on advance deposits were also excluded because the department did not prove they formed extra consideration for the goods; the assessee succeeded on the valuation dispute.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 May 2013 10:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=190817" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (10) TMI 382 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217442</link>
      <description>Provisional assessment was validly finalised despite delay because no statutory time limit barred completion, and the show-cause notice was not mandatory where natural justice was otherwise observed; the finalisation was upheld. In valuation, the accepted factory-gate sale price could not be disturbed by reducing the full deduction for returnable crate rental without evidence that the claimed amount was inflated or that related-person pricing existed, so the partial addition failed. Advertisement charges and notional interest on advance deposits were also excluded because the department did not prove they formed extra consideration for the goods; the assessee succeeded on the valuation dispute.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217442</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>