<?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 (10) TMI 157 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252023</link>
    <description>For captively consumed intermediate goods, valuation was held to follow the basis affirmed in the binding Board circular, and that principle was applied even for periods preceding the circular&#039;s issuance. The Tribunal accepted that the issue had already been settled by the Apex Court and upheld the assessee&#039;s valuation method, rejecting the Revenue&#039;s objection to retrospective application of the circular. No infirmity was found in not levying duty on advertisement expenses for such captive clearances.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2014 20:25:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=366505" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (10) TMI 157 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252023</link>
      <description>For captively consumed intermediate goods, valuation was held to follow the basis affirmed in the binding Board circular, and that principle was applied even for periods preceding the circular&#039;s issuance. The Tribunal accepted that the issue had already been settled by the Apex Court and upheld the assessee&#039;s valuation method, rejecting the Revenue&#039;s objection to retrospective application of the circular. No infirmity was found in not levying duty on advertisement expenses for such captive clearances.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252023</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>