<?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>2015 (9) TMI 1336 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264668</link>
    <description>Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 cannot be invoked for sister-concern clearances where the same goods are also sold to independent buyers at the same assessable value, because the legal basis for adopting a different valuation ceases to exist. The Tribunal noted that this position was already covered by a Larger Bench ruling followed in later cases and that the lower authorities had overlooked that settled law. However, since the adjudicating authority had not verified whether the assessee had in fact used the same value for both categories of clearances, the matter was remanded for limited factual examination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2015 16:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=399266" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (9) TMI 1336 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264668</link>
      <description>Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 cannot be invoked for sister-concern clearances where the same goods are also sold to independent buyers at the same assessable value, because the legal basis for adopting a different valuation ceases to exist. The Tribunal noted that this position was already covered by a Larger Bench ruling followed in later cases and that the lower authorities had overlooked that settled law. However, since the adjudicating authority had not verified whether the assessee had in fact used the same value for both categories of clearances, the matter was remanded for limited factual examination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264668</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>