<?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 224 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93470</link>
    <description>Transformers cleared from the factory without transformer oil had to be assessed on their value at the time and place of removal; oil supplied directly at the installation site by oil companies could not be added to the assessable value. On these facts, the site-supplied oil was outside the factory clearance value, and an earlier final order on identical facts was treated as binding. The demand for differential excise duty therefore could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2011 16:06:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130531" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (5) TMI 224 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93470</link>
      <description>Transformers cleared from the factory without transformer oil had to be assessed on their value at the time and place of removal; oil supplied directly at the installation site by oil companies could not be added to the assessable value. On these facts, the site-supplied oil was outside the factory clearance value, and an earlier final order on identical facts was treated as binding. The demand for differential excise duty therefore could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93470</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>