<?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 (9) TMI 61 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236628</link>
    <description>The appellate tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a 100% EOU, in a case concerning duty payment on damaged goods. The tribunal held that the insurance claim amount received for the damaged goods should not be added to the assessable value for duty calculation. As the duty was already paid based on the selling value of the damaged goods, there was no legal basis to include the insurance claim amount. The decision highlights the necessity to assess duty on damaged goods based on their actual selling value and not on additional insurance claim amounts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Nov 2013 09:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=199035" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (9) TMI 61 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236628</link>
      <description>The appellate tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a 100% EOU, in a case concerning duty payment on damaged goods. The tribunal held that the insurance claim amount received for the damaged goods should not be added to the assessable value for duty calculation. As the duty was already paid based on the selling value of the damaged goods, there was no legal basis to include the insurance claim amount. The decision highlights the necessity to assess duty on damaged goods based on their actual selling value and not on additional insurance claim amounts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236628</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>