<?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>2004 (5) TMI 350 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111772</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a refrigerator manufacturer, in a case concerning the inclusion of a separately recovered warranty charge in the assessable value of refrigerators. The Tribunal held that the additional payment for the four-year warranty should not be part of the assessable value, emphasizing that the terms of the written warranty document govern the transaction. Citing legal precedent and previous decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the separate warranty transaction should not be considered part of the normal value of the refrigerator, setting aside the duty demand and directing the return of the deposit made towards additional duty liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:06:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148788" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (5) TMI 350 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111772</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a refrigerator manufacturer, in a case concerning the inclusion of a separately recovered warranty charge in the assessable value of refrigerators. The Tribunal held that the additional payment for the four-year warranty should not be part of the assessable value, emphasizing that the terms of the written warranty document govern the transaction. Citing legal precedent and previous decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the separate warranty transaction should not be considered part of the normal value of the refrigerator, setting aside the duty demand and directing the return of the deposit made towards additional duty liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111772</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>