<?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>1998 (10) TMI 209 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89915</link>
    <description>Inspection charges paid for a customer&#039;s nominee to inspect railway equipment were not includible in assessable value because the goods had already been tested by the manufacturer, were marketable on removal from the factory, and the later inspection did not enhance marketability. The charges were treated as post-manufacture expenses rather than part of the value of manufacture, so they were excluded from the assessable value.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Sep 2011 15:12:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126977" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (10) TMI 209 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89915</link>
      <description>Inspection charges paid for a customer&#039;s nominee to inspect railway equipment were not includible in assessable value because the goods had already been tested by the manufacturer, were marketable on removal from the factory, and the later inspection did not enhance marketability. The charges were treated as post-manufacture expenses rather than part of the value of manufacture, so they were excluded from the assessable value.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89915</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>