<?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>Dispute concerns valuation of CNG supplies: whether factory-gate transaction value under Section 4(1)(a) must be accepted or whether assessable value may be determined under Section 4(1)(b) read with Rule 7 by treating place of removal as retail outlets and adding commission/trade margin. Key legal points: valuation depends on place of removal and proper invocation of Rule 7; a ground of related party valuation must be specifically pleaded in the show cause notice before being relied upon; a prior tribunal conclusion on identical facts is binding for the period in question. The article reports that the department&#039;s unpleaded related party valuation was not sustained.</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>Dispute concerns valuation of CNG supplies: whether factory-gate transaction value under Section 4(1)(a) must be accepted or whether assessable value may be determined under Section 4(1)(b) read with Rule 7 by treating place of removal as retail outlets and adding commission/trade margin. Key legal points: valuation depends on place of removal and proper invocation of Rule 7; a ground of related party valuation must be specifically pleaded in the show cause notice before being relied upon; a prior tribunal conclusion on identical facts is binding for the period in question. The article reports that the department&#039;s unpleaded related party valuation was not sustained.</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>