<?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>2003 (7) TMI 345 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107632</link>
    <description>A refundable security deposit collected from dealers to secure proper installation of IC engines was not part of the price or consideration for sale. Because the deposit was returnable on production of the required certificate and was not an amount payable by the buyer as part of the transaction value, it could not be included in the assessable value for excise purposes. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2012 18:30:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144649" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (7) TMI 345 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107632</link>
      <description>A refundable security deposit collected from dealers to secure proper installation of IC engines was not part of the price or consideration for sale. Because the deposit was returnable on production of the required certificate and was not an amount payable by the buyer as part of the transaction value, it could not be included in the assessable value for excise purposes. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107632</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>