<?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>2000 (11) TMI 275 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50405</link>
    <description>Quantity of excisable goods cleared from a depot was to be re-determined on the basis of out-turn statements and a rational formula, with non-dutiable bridging quantities excluded. Retail service charges and other post-clearance costs were not includible in assessable value under section 4, and valuation had to be adjusted consistently with the earlier Tribunal view relied on. The amended section 11D was confined to excisable goods and the person liable under the statutory scheme, so it could not be applied in its existing form to imported petroleum products; that demand required reconsideration after amendment. Because these core issues were sent back for de novo adjudication, the penalty also had to be reconsidered on remand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Aug 2010 14:59:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88885" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (11) TMI 275 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50405</link>
      <description>Quantity of excisable goods cleared from a depot was to be re-determined on the basis of out-turn statements and a rational formula, with non-dutiable bridging quantities excluded. Retail service charges and other post-clearance costs were not includible in assessable value under section 4, and valuation had to be adjusted consistently with the earlier Tribunal view relied on. The amended section 11D was confined to excisable goods and the person liable under the statutory scheme, so it could not be applied in its existing form to imported petroleum products; that demand required reconsideration after amendment. Because these core issues were sent back for de novo adjudication, the penalty also had to be reconsidered on remand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50405</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>