<?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 (7) TMI 983 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212672</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the impugned orders, confirming the inclusion of Optional Service Charges (OSC) and Rust Proof Protection Charges (RPP) in the assessable value for determining Central Excise duty. It distinguished the case from Electrolux Voltas Ltd., concluding that the charges collected at the time of sale through a composite invoice were not genuinely optional. The Tribunal rejected the limitation argument raised by the appellants and dismissed their appeals.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2012 08:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=186076" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (7) TMI 983 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212672</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the impugned orders, confirming the inclusion of Optional Service Charges (OSC) and Rust Proof Protection Charges (RPP) in the assessable value for determining Central Excise duty. It distinguished the case from Electrolux Voltas Ltd., concluding that the charges collected at the time of sale through a composite invoice were not genuinely optional. The Tribunal rejected the limitation argument raised by the appellants and dismissed their appeals.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212672</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>