<?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 604 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109915</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that the rental charges for metal containers used to transport chlorine should not be included in the assessable value of the product. Citing previous court decisions and clarifications, the Tribunal determined that the rental charges were separate from the price of the chlorine and constituted a distinct transaction. Additionally, the Tribunal granted the appellants&#039; request for a waiver of the pre-deposit of duty demand and penalty, emphasizing the importance of expediting the appeal process given the significance of the valuation issue at hand. The appeal was scheduled for a priority hearing for a prompt resolution.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2012 17:45:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146931" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (7) TMI 604 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109915</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that the rental charges for metal containers used to transport chlorine should not be included in the assessable value of the product. Citing previous court decisions and clarifications, the Tribunal determined that the rental charges were separate from the price of the chlorine and constituted a distinct transaction. Additionally, the Tribunal granted the appellants&#039; request for a waiver of the pre-deposit of duty demand and penalty, emphasizing the importance of expediting the appeal process given the significance of the valuation issue at hand. The appeal was scheduled for a priority hearing for a prompt resolution.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109915</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>