https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92730 The appeal was dismissed as the Central Excise authorities disallowed deductions for freight and transit insurance costs incurred by paint manufacturers. The dispute arose from the interpretation of an amendment to Section 4 defining the "place of removal" as the depot where goods were sold, impacting the assessable value based on depot prices. The absence of evidence showing responsibility for delivery to the buyer's destination led to the disallowance of deductions claimed by the appellants, ultimately resulting in the rejection of their appeal. en-us Thu, 02 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Nov 2011 16:38:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92730 The appeal was dismissed as the Central Excise authorities disallowed deductions for freight and transit insurance costs incurred by paint manufacturers. The dispute arose from the interpretation of an amendment to Section 4 defining the "place of removal" as the depot where goods were sold, impacting the assessable value based on depot prices. The absence of evidence showing responsibility for delivery to the buyer's destination led to the disallowance of deductions claimed by the appellants, ultimately resulting in the rejection of their appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 02 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92730