<?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>2014 (2) TMI 398 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243801</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found M/s Met Trade India Ltd. guilty of undervaluing Tin Alloys, resulting in evasion of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs.1,43,33,544. The company failed to adhere to Valuation Rules, specifically Rule 8 and Rule 9, by undervaluing goods sold to related parties. The case emphasized the significance of correctly determining assessable value under the applicable sections of the Act. Discrepancies in goods sold to related persons raised concerns about evasion, leading to the Tribunal ordering a pre-deposit of Rs. 40 lakhs for appeal hearing, with the remaining duty and penalty stayed pending further orders.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2014 05:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=345481" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (2) TMI 398 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243801</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found M/s Met Trade India Ltd. guilty of undervaluing Tin Alloys, resulting in evasion of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs.1,43,33,544. The company failed to adhere to Valuation Rules, specifically Rule 8 and Rule 9, by undervaluing goods sold to related parties. The case emphasized the significance of correctly determining assessable value under the applicable sections of the Act. Discrepancies in goods sold to related persons raised concerns about evasion, leading to the Tribunal ordering a pre-deposit of Rs. 40 lakhs for appeal hearing, with the remaining duty and penalty stayed pending further orders.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243801</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>