<?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>2001 (5) TMI 950 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184440</link>
    <description>In job-work valuation of processed fabrics, assessable value must be determined at the manufacture stage, and the trader&#039;s later resale price or downstream profit cannot be added. On that basis, a differential duty demand based on trader-supplied resale data was treated as unsustainable because it rested on unsafe assumptions. The commentary also notes that where the alleged incorrect declaration came from trader-furnished data rather than deliberate suppression by the manufacturer, extended limitation cannot be applied and penalty cannot survive. The resulting position is that duty confirmation and penalty fail where the valuation basis and suppression allegations are not properly established.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 19 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Jul 2016 16:27:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=434398" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (5) TMI 950 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184440</link>
      <description>In job-work valuation of processed fabrics, assessable value must be determined at the manufacture stage, and the trader&#039;s later resale price or downstream profit cannot be added. On that basis, a differential duty demand based on trader-supplied resale data was treated as unsustainable because it rested on unsafe assumptions. The commentary also notes that where the alleged incorrect declaration came from trader-furnished data rather than deliberate suppression by the manufacturer, extended limitation cannot be applied and penalty cannot survive. The resulting position is that duty confirmation and penalty fail where the valuation basis and suppression allegations are not properly established.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 19 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184440</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>