<?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 (5) TMI 523 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209888</link>
    <description>Layout design charges for indicating where lighting fittings were to be installed were not part of the assessable value, because they related to installation planning rather than design of the manufactured product itself. Charges for designing the product could have been includible, but that was not the factual position here. Authorities relied on by the Revenue were treated as inapplicable on these facts, so the duty demand and consequential penalties were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Jul 2013 13:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=183330" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (5) TMI 523 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209888</link>
      <description>Layout design charges for indicating where lighting fittings were to be installed were not part of the assessable value, because they related to installation planning rather than design of the manufactured product itself. Charges for designing the product could have been includible, but that was not the factual position here. Authorities relied on by the Revenue were treated as inapplicable on these facts, so the duty demand and consequential penalties were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209888</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>