<?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 (5) TMI 49 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769777</link>
    <description>The SC/Tribunal addressed valuation of physician samples for central excise duty. The court held that valuation must be under Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules, 2000, based on pro rata market value. Despite legal uncertainties, the appellant&#039;s provisional assessment method was deemed acceptable. The tribunal set aside the show cause notice and penalty, recognizing the lack of willful suppression and compliance with existing circulars during the relevant period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 May 2025 08:54:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=818910" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 49 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769777</link>
      <description>The SC/Tribunal addressed valuation of physician samples for central excise duty. The court held that valuation must be under Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules, 2000, based on pro rata market value. Despite legal uncertainties, the appellant&#039;s provisional assessment method was deemed acceptable. The tribunal set aside the show cause notice and penalty, recognizing the lack of willful suppression and compliance with existing circulars during the relevant period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769777</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>