<?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>2006 (2) TMI 388 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117490</link>
    <description>The tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner&#039;s classification under Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, regarding the inclusion of transportation charges in the assessable value of Cylinders. The tribunal found that the goods were ready for delivery at the factory gate, aligning with Section 4(1)(a). As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, granting consequential relief to the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:34:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154487" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (2) TMI 388 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117490</link>
      <description>The tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner&#039;s classification under Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, regarding the inclusion of transportation charges in the assessable value of Cylinders. The tribunal found that the goods were ready for delivery at the factory gate, aligning with Section 4(1)(a). As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, granting consequential relief to the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117490</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>