<?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>2005 (4) TMI 170 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54190</link>
    <description>Under the amended Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, assessable value is based on the transaction value actually paid or payable, and not on indicative price circulars unless the department shows that the invoice price is not the true price. Where the notice did not allege any amount over and above the invoice price, declared values could not be rejected merely for want of supporting records. Different prices for replacement clearances, special contracts and spill-over supplies were consistent with commercial practice. Drawback received on deemed export clearances was not consideration flowing from the buyer and therefore could not be added to assessable value. The differential duty demand was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Oct 2010 15:03:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92667" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (4) TMI 170 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54190</link>
      <description>Under the amended Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, assessable value is based on the transaction value actually paid or payable, and not on indicative price circulars unless the department shows that the invoice price is not the true price. Where the notice did not allege any amount over and above the invoice price, declared values could not be rejected merely for want of supporting records. Different prices for replacement clearances, special contracts and spill-over supplies were consistent with commercial practice. Drawback received on deemed export clearances was not consideration flowing from the buyer and therefore could not be added to assessable value. The differential duty demand was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54190</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>