<?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 (8) TMI 298 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53663</link>
    <description>For stock transfers of rubber compound to another unit of the same manufacturer, assessable value must be determined under the valuation rules and CAS-4 cost principles, with non-manufacturing administrative overheads and selling expenses excluded. Where the record does not clearly show that the department&#039;s cost data applied that basis, fresh computation is required. A challenge to marketability and excisability cannot be raised at the appellate stage when the original dispute and adjudication were confined to undervaluation. The valuation issue was remanded for recalculation, while the marketability objection was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Jun 2024 15:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92140" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (8) TMI 298 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53663</link>
      <description>For stock transfers of rubber compound to another unit of the same manufacturer, assessable value must be determined under the valuation rules and CAS-4 cost principles, with non-manufacturing administrative overheads and selling expenses excluded. Where the record does not clearly show that the department&#039;s cost data applied that basis, fresh computation is required. A challenge to marketability and excisability cannot be raised at the appellate stage when the original dispute and adjudication were confined to undervaluation. The valuation issue was remanded for recalculation, while the marketability objection was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53663</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>