<?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>2022 (4) TMI 828 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421162</link>
    <description>Compensation received by an assessee was treated as includible in the valuation exercise, with the Court accepting the Tribunal&#039;s view on the main issue. The question of extended limitation and consequential penalty was not decided on merits and was instead relegated to review before the Tribunal. The operative effect was that the compensation amount remained part of valuation for the purpose under consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Apr 2022 08:53:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=676412" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (4) TMI 828 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421162</link>
      <description>Compensation received by an assessee was treated as includible in the valuation exercise, with the Court accepting the Tribunal&#039;s view on the main issue. The question of extended limitation and consequential penalty was not decided on merits and was instead relegated to review before the Tribunal. The operative effect was that the compensation amount remained part of valuation for the purpose under consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421162</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>