<?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>1986 (8) TMI 202 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72415</link>
    <description>The tribunal upheld lower orders disallowing the deduction of commission paid to an agent for procuring orders, the cost of wooden crates, and the cost of regulators from the assessable value of electric fans. It emphasized the application of specific legal precedents and tariff amendments in determining the assessable value of goods, ruling against the appellants&#039; requests.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 May 2011 13:09:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=110694" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (8) TMI 202 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72415</link>
      <description>The tribunal upheld lower orders disallowing the deduction of commission paid to an agent for procuring orders, the cost of wooden crates, and the cost of regulators from the assessable value of electric fans. It emphasized the application of specific legal precedents and tariff amendments in determining the assessable value of goods, ruling against the appellants&#039; requests.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72415</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>