<?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>2016 (12) TMI 1776 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281125</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039; decision, ruling that the sale price to an independent buyer should prevail over Rule 8 valuation when the same goods are sold on a principal to principal basis. The Tribunal emphasized that in cases where goods are supplied to a job worker but also sold to independent buyers, the sale price to the independent buyer should be used for valuation, as supported by precedents like Ispat Industries Ltd. and Handy Wires Pvt. Ltd. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2019 06:22:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=573972" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 1776 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281125</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039; decision, ruling that the sale price to an independent buyer should prevail over Rule 8 valuation when the same goods are sold on a principal to principal basis. The Tribunal emphasized that in cases where goods are supplied to a job worker but also sold to independent buyers, the sale price to the independent buyer should be used for valuation, as supported by precedents like Ispat Industries Ltd. and Handy Wires Pvt. Ltd. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281125</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>