<?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>2013 (11) TMI 1415 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240238</link>
    <description>Rule 8 valuation does not apply where excisable goods are removed outside the factory in circumstances indicating evasion, rather than used in captive consumption; in such cases, valuation on comparable goods may be sustained. Customer-specific manufacture does not by itself negate marketability if the goods are capable of being bought and sold. Clearances described as short-shipment replenishments were treated as clandestine removals where the goods did not return and were not properly accounted for, and absence of extra price realisation did not avoid duty liability. In suppression-based cases, the extended period under section 11A remains available. Personal penalties on employees require a distinct basis of individual culpability or gain.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Apr 2014 12:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=337494" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (11) TMI 1415 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240238</link>
      <description>Rule 8 valuation does not apply where excisable goods are removed outside the factory in circumstances indicating evasion, rather than used in captive consumption; in such cases, valuation on comparable goods may be sustained. Customer-specific manufacture does not by itself negate marketability if the goods are capable of being bought and sold. Clearances described as short-shipment replenishments were treated as clandestine removals where the goods did not return and were not properly accounted for, and absence of extra price realisation did not avoid duty liability. In suppression-based cases, the extended period under section 11A remains available. Personal penalties on employees require a distinct basis of individual culpability or gain.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240238</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>