<?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 (9) TMI 757 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151849</link>
    <description>For the pre-1-7-2000 period, pre-delivery inspection charges and free after-sales service charges were held not includible in assessable value because a Board circular for that period directed their exclusion. The valuation dispute was resolved by applying that clarification, so the department&#039;s appeal lacked merit and was dismissed. The operative effect is that the disputed service-related charges remained outside assessable value for the relevant period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:35:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168887" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (9) TMI 757 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151849</link>
      <description>For the pre-1-7-2000 period, pre-delivery inspection charges and free after-sales service charges were held not includible in assessable value because a Board circular for that period directed their exclusion. The valuation dispute was resolved by applying that clarification, so the department&#039;s appeal lacked merit and was dismissed. The operative effect is that the disputed service-related charges remained outside assessable value for the relevant period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151849</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>