<?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 (10) TMI 818 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368852</link>
    <description>Bought-out items used directly at site were deductible from the assessable value because they were not dutiable for the dispute, leaving no further duty on the reduced base. Penalty under Section 11AC was not justified because the assessee had sought departmental clarification and made full disclosure, showing no suppression or mala fide. Refund was refused where the duty had already been collected from buyers, so repayment to the assessee was not permissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2018 09:43:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=538456" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (10) TMI 818 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368852</link>
      <description>Bought-out items used directly at site were deductible from the assessable value because they were not dutiable for the dispute, leaving no further duty on the reduced base. Penalty under Section 11AC was not justified because the assessee had sought departmental clarification and made full disclosure, showing no suppression or mala fide. Refund was refused where the duty had already been collected from buyers, so repayment to the assessee was not permissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368852</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>