<?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>2010 (7) TMI 392 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202317</link>
    <description>Freight charged for transport from the factory gate to the buyer&#039;s premises was treated as part of assessable value where the supply moved under FOR terms, with delivery completed only at the buyer&#039;s premises and the goods travelling at the consignor&#039;s risk on a freight-paid basis. On that footing, the buyer&#039;s premises was regarded as the relevant place of valuation and outward freight became includible. Non-disclosure of the contract terms and risk allocation to the Department was treated as suppression of material facts, supporting invocation of the extended period of limitation for the earliest demand. The duty demands were therefore upheld, with interest and penalty also sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Feb 2011 18:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=175905" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (7) TMI 392 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202317</link>
      <description>Freight charged for transport from the factory gate to the buyer&#039;s premises was treated as part of assessable value where the supply moved under FOR terms, with delivery completed only at the buyer&#039;s premises and the goods travelling at the consignor&#039;s risk on a freight-paid basis. On that footing, the buyer&#039;s premises was regarded as the relevant place of valuation and outward freight became includible. Non-disclosure of the contract terms and risk allocation to the Department was treated as suppression of material facts, supporting invocation of the extended period of limitation for the earliest demand. The duty demands were therefore upheld, with interest and penalty also sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202317</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>