<?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>1997 (12) TMI 227 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87870</link>
    <description>Erection and commissioning charges were not proved to be warranty charges includible in assessable value because the warranty certificate showed warranty could continue even where erection was not done under the assessee&#039;s supervision, and the Revenue failed to establish that the entire charges were a disguised warranty levy. The material also indicated that labour and technical supervision costs were still incurred where such charges were collected. The appeal was therefore rejected in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2011 14:54:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124936" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (12) TMI 227 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87870</link>
      <description>Erection and commissioning charges were not proved to be warranty charges includible in assessable value because the warranty certificate showed warranty could continue even where erection was not done under the assessee&#039;s supervision, and the Revenue failed to establish that the entire charges were a disguised warranty levy. The material also indicated that labour and technical supervision costs were still incurred where such charges were collected. The appeal was therefore rejected in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87870</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>