<?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 (7) TMI 555 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329957</link>
    <description>Physician samples cleared from the same production as sale packs may be valued on a pro rata basis with reference to comparable sale packs under the valuation rules, and the addition of catch cover cost was not sustained. On the facts disclosed, there was no material showing wilful suppression or intent to evade duty, so invocation of the extended limitation period was unsustainable. The demand and penalties therefore could not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2017 10:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=434856" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (7) TMI 555 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329957</link>
      <description>Physician samples cleared from the same production as sale packs may be valued on a pro rata basis with reference to comparable sale packs under the valuation rules, and the addition of catch cover cost was not sustained. On the facts disclosed, there was no material showing wilful suppression or intent to evade duty, so invocation of the extended limitation period was unsustainable. The demand and penalties therefore could not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329957</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>