<?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 (10) TMI 198 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349043</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant in a case concerning the valuation of job work goods. The dispute centered on whether the goods should be valued based on the sale price set by the principal company or the landed cost plus job charges as advocated by the Revenue. The Tribunal held that when the sale price is available and used for excise duty payment, alternative valuation methods are unnecessary. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, ruling in favor of the appellant and allowing the appeals.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2018 11:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=491574" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (10) TMI 198 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349043</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant in a case concerning the valuation of job work goods. The dispute centered on whether the goods should be valued based on the sale price set by the principal company or the landed cost plus job charges as advocated by the Revenue. The Tribunal held that when the sale price is available and used for excise duty payment, alternative valuation methods are unnecessary. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, ruling in favor of the appellant and allowing the appeals.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349043</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>