<?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 (8) TMI 585 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346527</link>
    <description>For stock transfers from factory to depot or consignment agent premises during the relevant period, freight and unloading charges were includible in assessable value because the goods were sold from a place other than the place of removal and the applicable valuation rules supported inclusion; the contrary view was rejected. The extended period of limitation could not be invoked, however, because the record showed legal uncertainty and an earlier decision in the assessee&#039;s own case, and suppression of facts with intent to evade duty was not established. The demand was therefore time-barred beyond the normal period, with the merits decided against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Aug 2017 08:36:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=485717" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 585 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346527</link>
      <description>For stock transfers from factory to depot or consignment agent premises during the relevant period, freight and unloading charges were includible in assessable value because the goods were sold from a place other than the place of removal and the applicable valuation rules supported inclusion; the contrary view was rejected. The extended period of limitation could not be invoked, however, because the record showed legal uncertainty and an earlier decision in the assessee&#039;s own case, and suppression of facts with intent to evade duty was not established. The demand was therefore time-barred beyond the normal period, with the merits decided against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346527</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>