<?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 (10) TMI 2271 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266997</link>
    <description>Where comparable sales of similar castings to independent buyers are available, assessable value for captively consumed goods must be fixed under Rule 6(b)(i) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975, and cost construction under Rule 6(b)(ii) applies only if no reliable comparable value exists. On the facts noted, invoices for external sales were accepted and the Revenue failed to show material differences in the goods or any unreliability in the comparison, so undervaluation was not established. For the same reason, suppression or wilful misstatement was not proved, and the extended period and penalty under Section 11AC were not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 May 2016 12:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=403384" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 2271 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266997</link>
      <description>Where comparable sales of similar castings to independent buyers are available, assessable value for captively consumed goods must be fixed under Rule 6(b)(i) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975, and cost construction under Rule 6(b)(ii) applies only if no reliable comparable value exists. On the facts noted, invoices for external sales were accepted and the Revenue failed to show material differences in the goods or any unreliability in the comparison, so undervaluation was not established. For the same reason, suppression or wilful misstatement was not proved, and the extended period and penalty under Section 11AC were not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266997</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>