<?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>2007 (4) TMI 106 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1975</link>
    <description>Clearances of intermediate goods to sister units were examined on a cost-construction basis, with the Tribunal noting that the transaction was revenue neutral because duty paid by the manufacturing unit would have been available as Modvat credit to the receiving units. That revenue neutrality, together with filed and acknowledged price declarations, negatived any motive to evade duty and barred use of the extended limitation period. The Tribunal also held that the CBEC valuation circular was not correctly applied, because the profit margin had been computed on an improper basis instead of being linked to the previous year&#039;s margin on the relevant year&#039;s cost. The demand was therefore not sustainable on merits or limitation, and the penalty and interest failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=41353" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (4) TMI 106 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1975</link>
      <description>Clearances of intermediate goods to sister units were examined on a cost-construction basis, with the Tribunal noting that the transaction was revenue neutral because duty paid by the manufacturing unit would have been available as Modvat credit to the receiving units. That revenue neutrality, together with filed and acknowledged price declarations, negatived any motive to evade duty and barred use of the extended limitation period. The Tribunal also held that the CBEC valuation circular was not correctly applied, because the profit margin had been computed on an improper basis instead of being linked to the previous year&#039;s margin on the relevant year&#039;s cost. The demand was therefore not sustainable on merits or limitation, and the penalty and interest failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1975</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>