<?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>2026 (3) TMI 837 - CESTAT  HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788082</link>
    <description>Central excise valuation of CNG supplied to retail outlets depended on whether factory-gate transaction value could be displaced by treating the retail outlet as the place of removal and applying Rule 7. The show cause notice relied on the retail outlet as the place of removal but did not allege that transaction value was unacceptable because of a related-party relationship. A related-party valuation ground, including inclusion of commission or trade margin, could therefore not be introduced subsequently. The earlier Tribunal decision involving identical facts and legal issues remained applicable, resulting in acceptance of the appeals and non-sustenance of the demand on the unpleaded alternative ground.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2026 08:23:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=890996" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (3) TMI 837 - CESTAT  HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788082</link>
      <description>Central excise valuation of CNG supplied to retail outlets depended on whether factory-gate transaction value could be displaced by treating the retail outlet as the place of removal and applying Rule 7. The show cause notice relied on the retail outlet as the place of removal but did not allege that transaction value was unacceptable because of a related-party relationship. A related-party valuation ground, including inclusion of commission or trade margin, could therefore not be introduced subsequently. The earlier Tribunal decision involving identical facts and legal issues remained applicable, resulting in acceptance of the appeals and non-sustenance of the demand on the unpleaded alternative ground.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788082</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>