<?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>2016 (3) TMI 893 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325709</link>
    <description>Captively consumed printed packing materials were valued on cost data and departmental directions, and the assessee had furnished price declarations and supporting documents before the authorities. Because the earlier valuation orders and approvals had attained finality, and the department had accepted the declared valuation without timely challenge, allegations of intentional suppression or misstatement were not sustainable. The factory being under departmental physical control and no lawful reopening or rejection of the declarations being shown, the foundation for invoking the extended period of limitation was absent. The valuation dispute and demand based on undervaluation were therefore not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Oct 2016 12:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=421450" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 893 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325709</link>
      <description>Captively consumed printed packing materials were valued on cost data and departmental directions, and the assessee had furnished price declarations and supporting documents before the authorities. Because the earlier valuation orders and approvals had attained finality, and the department had accepted the declared valuation without timely challenge, allegations of intentional suppression or misstatement were not sustainable. The factory being under departmental physical control and no lawful reopening or rejection of the declarations being shown, the foundation for invoking the extended period of limitation was absent. The valuation dispute and demand based on undervaluation were therefore not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325709</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>