<?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>1999 (2) TMI 235 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91363</link>
    <description>Packing charges already included in the assessable value could not be separately demanded where the same issue had earlier been decided in the assessee&#039;s favour for the relevant period. The recorded finding was that no separate packing charges were incurred at the depot for packing, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge on the identical issue had no merit. On that basis, the impugned order was set aside and relief was granted to the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:15:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128425" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (2) TMI 235 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91363</link>
      <description>Packing charges already included in the assessable value could not be separately demanded where the same issue had earlier been decided in the assessee&#039;s favour for the relevant period. The recorded finding was that no separate packing charges were incurred at the depot for packing, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge on the identical issue had no merit. On that basis, the impugned order was set aside and relief was granted to the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91363</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>