<?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>2010 (6) TMI 213 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77954</link>
    <description>Outward freight used for door-delivery of goods was treated as admissible CENVAT credit where the freight cost formed part of the sale price, delivery was to the buyer&#039;s premises, and ownership and transit risk remained with the seller until delivery. The fact that buyers arranged transit insurance did not change the position where the contract terms showed that property passed only on delivery. The demand was also held time-barred because it was raised beyond the normal period without suppression, misstatement, or wilful concealment, and the issue was already debatable. The impugned order was set aside with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=116107" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (6) TMI 213 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77954</link>
      <description>Outward freight used for door-delivery of goods was treated as admissible CENVAT credit where the freight cost formed part of the sale price, delivery was to the buyer&#039;s premises, and ownership and transit risk remained with the seller until delivery. The fact that buyers arranged transit insurance did not change the position where the contract terms showed that property passed only on delivery. The demand was also held time-barred because it was raised beyond the normal period without suppression, misstatement, or wilful concealment, and the issue was already debatable. The impugned order was set aside with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77954</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>