<?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 (5) TMI 991 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328010</link>
    <description>Valuation disputes over deductions and additions to assessable value for provisional assessments of cigarette and smoking mixture clearances were sent back for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted that similar issues, including bank charges, excess interest on cash security deposit, advertisement and sales promotion expenses, below-the-line expenses, and interest on trading, had already been decided by jurisdictional authorities for the appellant&#039;s other factories. It held that those comparative orders and the quantification method could be examined by the adjudicating authority for the Munger factory before finalising assessable value and duty liability. The Tribunal expressed no view on the merits and required reconsideration after personal hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Jun 2016 16:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=429344" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (5) TMI 991 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328010</link>
      <description>Valuation disputes over deductions and additions to assessable value for provisional assessments of cigarette and smoking mixture clearances were sent back for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted that similar issues, including bank charges, excess interest on cash security deposit, advertisement and sales promotion expenses, below-the-line expenses, and interest on trading, had already been decided by jurisdictional authorities for the appellant&#039;s other factories. It held that those comparative orders and the quantification method could be examined by the adjudicating authority for the Munger factory before finalising assessable value and duty liability. The Tribunal expressed no view on the merits and required reconsideration after personal hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328010</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>