<?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 (11) TMI 1033 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268224</link>
    <description>Mutuality of interest between closely connected units justified rejection of the declared transaction value for grey acrylic spun yarn, but the assessable value had to be reworked on the average price charged by SBM to independent buyers, not on RD&#039;s outside purchase prices; the valuation issue was remanded for fresh quantification. Eligibility for exemption on dyed yarn turned on whether the grey yarn had suffered payment of the correct excise duty, so the exemption claim under Notifications No. 5/99-C.E. and 6/2000-C.E. was left to be decided afresh after reassessment. The demand for alleged clandestine removal of dyed yarn was set aside because it rested on presumption alone and lacked supporting evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2016 12:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=406132" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (11) TMI 1033 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268224</link>
      <description>Mutuality of interest between closely connected units justified rejection of the declared transaction value for grey acrylic spun yarn, but the assessable value had to be reworked on the average price charged by SBM to independent buyers, not on RD&#039;s outside purchase prices; the valuation issue was remanded for fresh quantification. Eligibility for exemption on dyed yarn turned on whether the grey yarn had suffered payment of the correct excise duty, so the exemption claim under Notifications No. 5/99-C.E. and 6/2000-C.E. was left to be decided afresh after reassessment. The demand for alleged clandestine removal of dyed yarn was set aside because it rested on presumption alone and lacked supporting evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268224</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>