<?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>2009 (10) TMI 443 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77358</link>
    <description>Where a matter is remanded for fresh decision on the evidence on record, the authority must independently assess the factual material and cannot rely only on an earlier order; here, the appellate order was set aside and the adjudication orders restored because the remand directions were not properly followed. Freight and handling charges were not excluded from assessable value for exemption purposes because no evidence showed they related to loading or unloading outside the factory gate, and that challenge failed. Excess utilisation of money credit was also upheld because the respondents drew credit when the balance was nil, with no explanation or evidence to justify the overdrawal, so that challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=115528" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (10) TMI 443 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77358</link>
      <description>Where a matter is remanded for fresh decision on the evidence on record, the authority must independently assess the factual material and cannot rely only on an earlier order; here, the appellate order was set aside and the adjudication orders restored because the remand directions were not properly followed. Freight and handling charges were not excluded from assessable value for exemption purposes because no evidence showed they related to loading or unloading outside the factory gate, and that challenge failed. Excess utilisation of money credit was also upheld because the respondents drew credit when the balance was nil, with no explanation or evidence to justify the overdrawal, so that challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77358</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>