<?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 (8) TMI 1594 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797720</link>
    <description>Excise valuation of outward freight depends on the place of removal: freight is included in assessable value for FOR sales where the buyer&#039;s premises are the place of removal, but not for ex-factory sales with freight separately shown. Differential duty must be confined to FOR transactions established by the purchase orders relied on in the show-cause notice; it cannot rest on a presumption that other sales share the same terms. Extended limitation is unavailable where departmental audits examined the records and the issue involved competing interpretations. In those circumstances, suppression with intent to evade duty is not established and penalty under Section 11AC is not attracted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2026 08:28:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=919394" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (8) TMI 1594 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797720</link>
      <description>Excise valuation of outward freight depends on the place of removal: freight is included in assessable value for FOR sales where the buyer&#039;s premises are the place of removal, but not for ex-factory sales with freight separately shown. Differential duty must be confined to FOR transactions established by the purchase orders relied on in the show-cause notice; it cannot rest on a presumption that other sales share the same terms. Extended limitation is unavailable where departmental audits examined the records and the issue involved competing interpretations. In those circumstances, suppression with intent to evade duty is not established and penalty under Section 11AC is not attracted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797720</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>