<?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>2011 (8) TMI 153 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205622</link>
    <description>Freight or transportation charges recovered only to the extent of actual transportation cost through debit notes were excluded from the assessable value where goods were cleared from the factory gate. The factual finding that the assessee collected only actual transportation charges remained unchallenged, and in the absence of contrary evidence from the Revenue, Rule 5 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 applied to permit exclusion of the freight element. The place of removal was treated as the factory gate, and Board circulars supporting determination of the point of sale and abatement of actual transport cost were relied on. The Revenue appeal was rejected and the assessee&#039;s valuation was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=179126" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (8) TMI 153 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205622</link>
      <description>Freight or transportation charges recovered only to the extent of actual transportation cost through debit notes were excluded from the assessable value where goods were cleared from the factory gate. The factual finding that the assessee collected only actual transportation charges remained unchallenged, and in the absence of contrary evidence from the Revenue, Rule 5 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 applied to permit exclusion of the freight element. The place of removal was treated as the factory gate, and Board circulars supporting determination of the point of sale and abatement of actual transport cost were relied on. The Revenue appeal was rejected and the assessee&#039;s valuation was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205622</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>