<?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>2008 (5) TMI 214 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31647</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal regarding the valuation of damaged BOPP film for captive consumption under the Central Excise Valuation Rules. The Tribunal held that duty liability for captively consumed BOPP film should be based on the value at which the damaged film was cleared for home consumption, not Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules. Emphasizing consistency in decisions, the Tribunal highlighted that if a previous order accepting the valuation method was not challenged, there was no basis for raising a duty demand for subsequent periods. The appeal and stay application were therefore dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=70293" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (5) TMI 214 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31647</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal regarding the valuation of damaged BOPP film for captive consumption under the Central Excise Valuation Rules. The Tribunal held that duty liability for captively consumed BOPP film should be based on the value at which the damaged film was cleared for home consumption, not Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules. Emphasizing consistency in decisions, the Tribunal highlighted that if a previous order accepting the valuation method was not challenged, there was no basis for raising a duty demand for subsequent periods. The appeal and stay application were therefore dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31647</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>