<?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 (9) TMI 180 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54701</link>
    <description>Royalty and advertisement expenses were not added to assessable value because the Department produced no concrete evidence that they had been excluded, and the assessee&#039;s stand that they were already included was accepted. Clubbing of clearances from alleged dummy units with those of the principal units was also rejected because documentary and oral material showed independent manufacturing activity, while the Department relied mainly on a retracted statement and lacked reliable proof of fictitious operation. The ratio is that undervaluation and dummy-unit allegations must be established by concrete, reliable evidence before valuation additions or denial of SSI exemption can be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Oct 2010 15:46:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=93178" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (9) TMI 180 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54701</link>
      <description>Royalty and advertisement expenses were not added to assessable value because the Department produced no concrete evidence that they had been excluded, and the assessee&#039;s stand that they were already included was accepted. Clubbing of clearances from alleged dummy units with those of the principal units was also rejected because documentary and oral material showed independent manufacturing activity, while the Department relied mainly on a retracted statement and lacked reliable proof of fictitious operation. The ratio is that undervaluation and dummy-unit allegations must be established by concrete, reliable evidence before valuation additions or denial of SSI exemption can be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54701</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>