<?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 (4) TMI 471 - CESTAT, Bangalore</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=227239</link>
    <description>Charges for supplying gas-filled cylinders to customers&#039; premises were not includible in the assessable value of industrial oxygen gas because the supply or rental of cylinders was not incidental to manufacture. The valuation issue had already been settled in the assessee&#039;s own case by a coordinate Bench, following Supreme Court authority, and the same principle applied to facility charges for cylinders mounted on trailers and consumed at the customer&#039;s premises. As the charges were excluded from assessable value, the consequential demand of duty, interest, and penalty could not survive, and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 06:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=195624" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (4) TMI 471 - CESTAT, Bangalore</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=227239</link>
      <description>Charges for supplying gas-filled cylinders to customers&#039; premises were not includible in the assessable value of industrial oxygen gas because the supply or rental of cylinders was not incidental to manufacture. The valuation issue had already been settled in the assessee&#039;s own case by a coordinate Bench, following Supreme Court authority, and the same principle applied to facility charges for cylinders mounted on trailers and consumed at the customer&#039;s premises. As the charges were excluded from assessable value, the consequential demand of duty, interest, and penalty could not survive, and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=227239</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>