<?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>2024 (8) TMI 315 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756611</link>
    <description>Under the area-based exemption scheme, special rate fixation could not be refused merely because the assessee derived unit-wise sale value from audited financial statements and apportioned it to units on a stock-transfer basis. The scheme required actual value addition to be computed from the preceding financial year&#039;s audited figures, and the claimant supported its computation with statutory auditor certification and audited records. As the same methodology had already been accepted for computing gross sales value in an earlier identical matter, rejection of the special rate on that ground alone was inconsistent with the approved approach. The special rate claim was therefore valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2025 17:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=763101" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (8) TMI 315 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756611</link>
      <description>Under the area-based exemption scheme, special rate fixation could not be refused merely because the assessee derived unit-wise sale value from audited financial statements and apportioned it to units on a stock-transfer basis. The scheme required actual value addition to be computed from the preceding financial year&#039;s audited figures, and the claimant supported its computation with statutory auditor certification and audited records. As the same methodology had already been accepted for computing gross sales value in an earlier identical matter, rejection of the special rate on that ground alone was inconsistent with the approved approach. The special rate claim was therefore valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756611</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>