<?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>2000 (5) TMI 221 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93467</link>
    <description>Inspection charges were held not includible in the assessable value for central excise where a binding determination had already excluded them. Duty was therefore payable only on the lower assessable value, and any duty collected by adding inspection charges was excess duty. On that basis, refund of the excess duty was justified and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2011 16:01:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130528" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (5) TMI 221 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93467</link>
      <description>Inspection charges were held not includible in the assessable value for central excise where a binding determination had already excluded them. Duty was therefore payable only on the lower assessable value, and any duty collected by adding inspection charges was excess duty. On that basis, refund of the excess duty was justified and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93467</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>