<?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 1028 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349873</link>
    <description>Retained sales tax under the Haryana VAT deferment scheme was treated as part of the assessable value for central excise duty, following the controlling Supreme Court ruling on Haryana VAT. The Tribunal also held that extended limitation could not be invoked where the valuation dispute remained unsettled and overlapping show cause notices existed, so penalty was unsustainable. For the surviving demand, the assessee was allowed cum-duty benefit because no separate duty had been collected on the retained sales tax component. The demand was therefore sustained only for the normal-period portion, while the overlapping and extended-period demands were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Oct 2017 09:03:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=493636" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (10) TMI 1028 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349873</link>
      <description>Retained sales tax under the Haryana VAT deferment scheme was treated as part of the assessable value for central excise duty, following the controlling Supreme Court ruling on Haryana VAT. The Tribunal also held that extended limitation could not be invoked where the valuation dispute remained unsettled and overlapping show cause notices existed, so penalty was unsustainable. For the surviving demand, the assessee was allowed cum-duty benefit because no separate duty had been collected on the retained sales tax component. The demand was therefore sustained only for the normal-period portion, while the overlapping and extended-period demands were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349873</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>