<?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>2008 (6) TMI 466 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124008</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, NEW DELHI ruled in favor of the appellant in a dispute over the assessment of freight charges in determining the assessable value for heavy machinery supply contracts. The Tribunal found that the appellant&#039;s practice of separately billing freight charges, despite not indicating them in the invoices, did not artificially reduce the assessable value. It noted that the appellant incurred higher freight costs than collected from customers, with the freight amount based on a separate contract and billed separately. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner&#039;s order, allowing the appeal and providing relief to the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Sep 2012 14:54:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160965" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (6) TMI 466 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124008</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, NEW DELHI ruled in favor of the appellant in a dispute over the assessment of freight charges in determining the assessable value for heavy machinery supply contracts. The Tribunal found that the appellant&#039;s practice of separately billing freight charges, despite not indicating them in the invoices, did not artificially reduce the assessable value. It noted that the appellant incurred higher freight costs than collected from customers, with the freight amount based on a separate contract and billed separately. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner&#039;s order, allowing the appeal and providing relief to the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124008</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>