<?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 (4) TMI 1026 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176752</link>
    <description>For captive clearances between units of the same assessee, assessable value is to be taken from the price charged to independent buyers when the assessee also sells the same goods in the open market. The Larger Bench ruling in Ispat Industries Ltd. was treated as binding and was held to override earlier contrary views, so Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 did not apply to the captive transfers in question. The revenue challenge therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Dec 2015 21:08:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=410893" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (4) TMI 1026 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176752</link>
      <description>For captive clearances between units of the same assessee, assessable value is to be taken from the price charged to independent buyers when the assessee also sells the same goods in the open market. The Larger Bench ruling in Ispat Industries Ltd. was treated as binding and was held to override earlier contrary views, so Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 did not apply to the captive transfers in question. The revenue challenge therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176752</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>