<?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 (4) TMI 723 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126337</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi dismissed the Department&#039;s appeal challenging the Commissioner (Appeals) decision on the recovery of value for glass bottles and crates by a beverage manufacturer. The Tribunal upheld that the bottles and crates were intended for repeated use, with the recovery not constituting a sale but rather an arrangement for safe return. Considering the Circular on reusable containers and the original authority&#039;s findings, the Tribunal found the Commissioner (Appeals) decision reasonable, emphasizing that the recovery did not amount to an additional consideration for sale. The Department&#039;s appeal was thus dismissed for lacking merit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Jul 2017 13:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163233" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (4) TMI 723 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126337</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi dismissed the Department&#039;s appeal challenging the Commissioner (Appeals) decision on the recovery of value for glass bottles and crates by a beverage manufacturer. The Tribunal upheld that the bottles and crates were intended for repeated use, with the recovery not constituting a sale but rather an arrangement for safe return. Considering the Circular on reusable containers and the original authority&#039;s findings, the Tribunal found the Commissioner (Appeals) decision reasonable, emphasizing that the recovery did not amount to an additional consideration for sale. The Department&#039;s appeal was thus dismissed for lacking merit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126337</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>