<?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 895 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339195</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the application of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2000 for goods transferred for captive consumption and justified the invocation of the extended period of limitation for the demand due to the appellant&#039;s failure to disclose material facts. The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld, emphasizing the correct application of valuation rules and the justified invocation of the extended period for demand recovery.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2017 00:02:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=459269" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 895 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339195</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the application of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2000 for goods transferred for captive consumption and justified the invocation of the extended period of limitation for the demand due to the appellant&#039;s failure to disclose material facts. The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld, emphasizing the correct application of valuation rules and the justified invocation of the extended period for demand recovery.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339195</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>