<?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>2004 (6) TMI 184 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53242</link>
    <description>Adjudication and remand directions must stay within the scope of the show-cause notice; a fresh basis for valuation cannot be introduced at the appellate stage. Here, the original valuation dispute was examined against the statutory valuation scheme, a binding Board circular and settled excise valuation principles, but the remand order shifted the matter to a different redetermination basis under the Valuation Rules that had not been proposed in the notice. Because the revised calculations and de novo adjudication travelled beyond the notice, the remand order and the consequential de novo order were unsustainable, and the assessee&#039;s appeals succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:28:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91719" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (6) TMI 184 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53242</link>
      <description>Adjudication and remand directions must stay within the scope of the show-cause notice; a fresh basis for valuation cannot be introduced at the appellate stage. Here, the original valuation dispute was examined against the statutory valuation scheme, a binding Board circular and settled excise valuation principles, but the remand order shifted the matter to a different redetermination basis under the Valuation Rules that had not been proposed in the notice. Because the revised calculations and de novo adjudication travelled beyond the notice, the remand order and the consequential de novo order were unsustainable, and the assessee&#039;s appeals succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53242</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>