<?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>2009 (3) TMI 700 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125411</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner&#039;s decision to exclude drawing and designing charges from the assessable value for Central Excise duty calculation. The Tribunal emphasized that the charges were voluntarily supplied by customers without additional cost to the manufacturer, making them beyond the scope of the Central Excise Act. As a result, the Revenue&#039;s appeal was rejected, and cross-objections by the manufacturer were disposed of accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Jul 2017 09:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162329" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (3) TMI 700 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125411</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner&#039;s decision to exclude drawing and designing charges from the assessable value for Central Excise duty calculation. The Tribunal emphasized that the charges were voluntarily supplied by customers without additional cost to the manufacturer, making them beyond the scope of the Central Excise Act. As a result, the Revenue&#039;s appeal was rejected, and cross-objections by the manufacturer were disposed of accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125411</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>