<?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 (8) TMI 1676 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366204</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court interpreted the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975, in a case involving the valuation of captively consumed goods by M/s Golden Tobacco Limited. The Court held that a notional profit margin of 10% should be added if the assessee fails to establish a lower profit margin. Emphasizing the need to consider notional profits in such valuations, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on 29/08/2018, highlighting the importance of relevant data and evidence in determining the profit element for duty assessment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2020 15:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=532603" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (8) TMI 1676 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366204</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court interpreted the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975, in a case involving the valuation of captively consumed goods by M/s Golden Tobacco Limited. The Court held that a notional profit margin of 10% should be added if the assessee fails to establish a lower profit margin. Emphasizing the need to consider notional profits in such valuations, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on 29/08/2018, highlighting the importance of relevant data and evidence in determining the profit element for duty assessment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366204</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>