<?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>2025 (1) TMI 420 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764358</link>
    <description>CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal concerning stock transfers to sister units during 27.08.2004 to 07.06.2005. Appellant cleared goods using predetermined values based on previous year CAS-4 data, resulting in over/under valuation. Short payments were immediately rectified with interest, while excess payments led to refunds. Tribunal held no penalty was imposable as valuation discrepancies arose from regulatory provisions for related party supplies without intent to evade duty. The impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Jan 2025 10:41:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=787569" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (1) TMI 420 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764358</link>
      <description>CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal concerning stock transfers to sister units during 27.08.2004 to 07.06.2005. Appellant cleared goods using predetermined values based on previous year CAS-4 data, resulting in over/under valuation. Short payments were immediately rectified with interest, while excess payments led to refunds. Tribunal held no penalty was imposable as valuation discrepancies arose from regulatory provisions for related party supplies without intent to evade duty. The impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764358</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>