<?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>2018 (4) TMI 759 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358648</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellants, a company manufacturing Printed Circuit Boards (PCBs), regarding the inclusion of development charges in the assessable value of PCBs. The Tribunal found that the method of valuation followed by the adjudicating authority, which amortized the development charges over the production period, was in line with previous directions and not challenged earlier. As there was no intent to evade duty or suppression of information, the demands for the extended period and penalties were deemed unsustainable. The penalties imposed on the company&#039;s directors were set aside, and the impugned order was modified accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2018 06:18:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=517042" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 759 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358648</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellants, a company manufacturing Printed Circuit Boards (PCBs), regarding the inclusion of development charges in the assessable value of PCBs. The Tribunal found that the method of valuation followed by the adjudicating authority, which amortized the development charges over the production period, was in line with previous directions and not challenged earlier. As there was no intent to evade duty or suppression of information, the demands for the extended period and penalties were deemed unsustainable. The penalties imposed on the company&#039;s directors were set aside, and the impugned order was modified accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358648</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>