<?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>Goods Valuation Debate: Section 4 vs. Section 4A for Tax Purposes; No Penalty Due to Lack of Malafide Intent.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=68367</link>
    <description>Levy of penalty - The only dispute is that whether the goods should be valued under Section 4 or Section 4A. The company’s stand was that they were supplying goods to industries therefore, they were under belief that goods should be valued under Section 4 - There are no mala fide intention on the part of these appellants - No penalty - AT</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2023 08:36:44 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2023 08:36:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=705234" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Goods Valuation Debate: Section 4 vs. Section 4A for Tax Purposes; No Penalty Due to Lack of Malafide Intent.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=68367</link>
      <description>Levy of penalty - The only dispute is that whether the goods should be valued under Section 4 or Section 4A. The company’s stand was that they were supplying goods to industries therefore, they were under belief that goods should be valued under Section 4 - There are no mala fide intention on the part of these appellants - No penalty - AT</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2023 08:36:44 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=68367</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>