<?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>2013 (1) TMI 329 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220223</link>
    <description>Dealer-incurred expenses for pre-delivery inspection and free after-sale services were treated as not prima facie includible in the cars&#039; transaction value for waiver of pre-deposit. The dealership arrangement required the dealer to provide those services, and the vehicles were cleared on a principal-to-principal basis at a price already reflecting the dealer&#039;s obligations. Relying on the earlier Supreme Court view that such service costs are not includible absent reimbursement or flow-back to the assessee, the interim contrary Larger Bench view was not applied to deny relief. Pre-deposit of duty, interest and penalty was therefore waived and recovery stayed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2013 06:40:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=193592" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (1) TMI 329 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220223</link>
      <description>Dealer-incurred expenses for pre-delivery inspection and free after-sale services were treated as not prima facie includible in the cars&#039; transaction value for waiver of pre-deposit. The dealership arrangement required the dealer to provide those services, and the vehicles were cleared on a principal-to-principal basis at a price already reflecting the dealer&#039;s obligations. Relying on the earlier Supreme Court view that such service costs are not includible absent reimbursement or flow-back to the assessee, the interim contrary Larger Bench view was not applied to deny relief. Pre-deposit of duty, interest and penalty was therefore waived and recovery stayed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220223</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>