<?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 (10) TMI 1076 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429518</link>
    <description>The Tribunal concluded that the valuation of goods cleared to sister units should be based on transaction value under Rule 4, as the goods were partly sold to unrelated buyers. Rule 8 was deemed inapplicable in such cases, aligning with the Supreme Court&#039;s interpretation. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the amendment to Rule 8 effective from 01.12.2013 could not be applied retrospectively.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2022 08:13:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=694378" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (10) TMI 1076 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429518</link>
      <description>The Tribunal concluded that the valuation of goods cleared to sister units should be based on transaction value under Rule 4, as the goods were partly sold to unrelated buyers. Rule 8 was deemed inapplicable in such cases, aligning with the Supreme Court&#039;s interpretation. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the amendment to Rule 8 effective from 01.12.2013 could not be applied retrospectively.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429518</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>