<?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>2006 (4) TMI 31 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=661</link>
    <description>Excise duty valuation for detergent cleared in 25 kg bulk packs had to be based on the condition and price at the time and place of removal, so the later repacking of goods into retail sachets could not justify adopting the retail pack price for factory clearance value. The post-repacking retail price was therefore not a valid basis for assessment. On limitation, the assessee had consistently disclosed valuation on a cost-of-production basis and the department had prior opportunity to examine that method, so the record did not show suppression of material facts with intent to evade duty. The extended period was unavailable and the demand was time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Jun 2013 11:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40106" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (4) TMI 31 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=661</link>
      <description>Excise duty valuation for detergent cleared in 25 kg bulk packs had to be based on the condition and price at the time and place of removal, so the later repacking of goods into retail sachets could not justify adopting the retail pack price for factory clearance value. The post-repacking retail price was therefore not a valid basis for assessment. On limitation, the assessee had consistently disclosed valuation on a cost-of-production basis and the department had prior opportunity to examine that method, so the record did not show suppression of material facts with intent to evade duty. The extended period was unavailable and the demand was time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=661</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>