<?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>1996 (8) TMI 330 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87738</link>
    <description>Forwarding charges collected from customers were treated as averaged freight for consignments, and no evidence showed that the freight actually paid was lower than the amounts collected. On that basis, no surplus amount was available for addition to the assessable value for central excise purposes. The forwarding charges were therefore not includible in the assessable value, and the appeals were allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Sep 2011 10:36:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124804" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (8) TMI 330 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87738</link>
      <description>Forwarding charges collected from customers were treated as averaged freight for consignments, and no evidence showed that the freight actually paid was lower than the amounts collected. On that basis, no surplus amount was available for addition to the assessable value for central excise purposes. The forwarding charges were therefore not includible in the assessable value, and the appeals were allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87738</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>