<?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>Assessable value determination upheld based on landed cost &amp; processing charges. No suppression of facts found. Appeal allowed in part.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78149</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal addressed the issue of determining assessable value u/s 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, including landed cost and processing charges. Citing Supreme Court precedent and CBEC circulars, duty was upheld based on landed cost. The Tribunal noted that the selling price at times exceeded landed cost, with duty paid on the higher value. Regarding time limitation, the Tribunal found no suppression of facts as the appellant regularly submitted required documents. Referring to a Supreme Court case, it was held that invoking the proviso to Section 11A requires evidence of fraud or willful evasion, which was not present. The order confirmed duty for the normal period only, partially allowing the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2024 08:13:51 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2024 08:13:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=755290" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Assessable value determination upheld based on landed cost &amp; processing charges. No suppression of facts found. Appeal allowed in part.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78149</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal addressed the issue of determining assessable value u/s 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, including landed cost and processing charges. Citing Supreme Court precedent and CBEC circulars, duty was upheld based on landed cost. The Tribunal noted that the selling price at times exceeded landed cost, with duty paid on the higher value. Regarding time limitation, the Tribunal found no suppression of facts as the appellant regularly submitted required documents. Referring to a Supreme Court case, it was held that invoking the proviso to Section 11A requires evidence of fraud or willful evasion, which was not present. The order confirmed duty for the normal period only, partially allowing the appeal.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2024 08:13:51 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78149</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>