<?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>2017 (2) TMI 312 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338612</link>
    <description>Demand on the amortised cost of buyer-supplied dies and tools was upheld, with the challenge to limitation and penalty also rejected because the precedents relied on were found inapplicable to the procedural framework in issue. The valuation of defective electrical insulation tapes cleared through a job-worker was not sustained, as neither the declared value nor the enhancement basis was properly justified and the order was treated as non-speaking; the matter was remanded for fresh determination. Refund adjustment against pending dues was also set aside because proper notice and identification of the dues were lacking, and reconsideration was directed after the connected valuation issue is decided.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Aug 2017 18:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=457879" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 312 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338612</link>
      <description>Demand on the amortised cost of buyer-supplied dies and tools was upheld, with the challenge to limitation and penalty also rejected because the precedents relied on were found inapplicable to the procedural framework in issue. The valuation of defective electrical insulation tapes cleared through a job-worker was not sustained, as neither the declared value nor the enhancement basis was properly justified and the order was treated as non-speaking; the matter was remanded for fresh determination. Refund adjustment against pending dues was also set aside because proper notice and identification of the dues were lacking, and reconsideration was directed after the connected valuation issue is decided.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338612</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>