<?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 (2) TMI 258 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765712</link>
    <description>Under central excise valuation principles, sales tax/VAT retained by an assessee under the Haryana deferment scheme remained includible in transaction value because only tax actually paid or actually payable to the State is excluded. The retained amounts, though collected from customers as tax, were not remitted to the exchequer and therefore formed part of the assessable value; the demand on merits was sustained for the normal period. On limitation and penalty, invoice disclosure of the tax collections and the nature of the deferment arrangement did not establish conscious suppression or intent to evade, so the extended period was not invocable and the penalty was deleted. Cum-duty benefit was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Feb 2025 09:12:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=796228" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 258 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765712</link>
      <description>Under central excise valuation principles, sales tax/VAT retained by an assessee under the Haryana deferment scheme remained includible in transaction value because only tax actually paid or actually payable to the State is excluded. The retained amounts, though collected from customers as tax, were not remitted to the exchequer and therefore formed part of the assessable value; the demand on merits was sustained for the normal period. On limitation and penalty, invoice disclosure of the tax collections and the nature of the deferment arrangement did not establish conscious suppression or intent to evade, so the extended period was not invocable and the penalty was deleted. Cum-duty benefit was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765712</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>