<?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 (9) TMI 226 - CESTAT  ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331965</link>
    <description>A show cause notice based duty demand was found unsustainable where the quantification in Annexure-D used royalty agreements executed after the disputed period and applied those later figures retrospectively to earlier clearances. That method created a presumptive assessable value and a presumptive duty demand, rather than a demand grounded in the actual period under notice. On that basis, the notice was held not sustainable and the appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2016 15:53:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=440243" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 226 - CESTAT  ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331965</link>
      <description>A show cause notice based duty demand was found unsustainable where the quantification in Annexure-D used royalty agreements executed after the disputed period and applied those later figures retrospectively to earlier clearances. That method created a presumptive assessable value and a presumptive duty demand, rather than a demand grounded in the actual period under notice. On that basis, the notice was held not sustainable and the appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331965</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>