<?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 (7) TMI 837 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345725</link>
    <description>Petroleum products cleared from a warehouse to company owned and company operated outlets were held not to be valued at the retail price charged at the outlet. Valuation had to follow the transaction value at the point of removal, because the COCO outlet was not the place of removal for these clearances. The Tribunal relied on settled precedent, including Supreme Court affirmation and the assessee&#039;s earlier case on the same issue, to conclude that the retail outlet price could not be substituted for assessable value merely because the goods were later sold there. The demand was therefore not sustainable, and the appeals were allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Jul 2017 16:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=482778" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 837 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345725</link>
      <description>Petroleum products cleared from a warehouse to company owned and company operated outlets were held not to be valued at the retail price charged at the outlet. Valuation had to follow the transaction value at the point of removal, because the COCO outlet was not the place of removal for these clearances. The Tribunal relied on settled precedent, including Supreme Court affirmation and the assessee&#039;s earlier case on the same issue, to conclude that the retail outlet price could not be substituted for assessable value merely because the goods were later sold there. The demand was therefore not sustainable, and the appeals were allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345725</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>