<?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 (2) TMI 590 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125876</link>
    <description>Transportation costs incurred for moving goods from the factory to the depot were treated as post-clearance expenses and not deductible from assessable value. The claim that the movement was between two places of removal was rejected, as the Tribunal applied the statutory language and relied on CBEC Circular No. 251/85/96-CX dated 14-10-96 to hold that such transport charges do not reduce assessable value. The appeals were rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:17:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162782" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (2) TMI 590 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125876</link>
      <description>Transportation costs incurred for moving goods from the factory to the depot were treated as post-clearance expenses and not deductible from assessable value. The claim that the movement was between two places of removal was rejected, as the Tribunal applied the statutory language and relied on CBEC Circular No. 251/85/96-CX dated 14-10-96 to hold that such transport charges do not reduce assessable value. The appeals were rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125876</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>