<?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>2015 (10) TMI 1779 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266504</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, setting aside the previous order and upholding the inclusion of inspection charges in the assessable value for duty calculation under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The case involved a dispute over whether charges paid to RITES for mandatory inspections necessary for marketability should be included in the assessable value. The Tribunal determined that the inspection by RITES was a prerequisite for the sale of the goods, making the charges includible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:12:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=402580" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 1779 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266504</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, setting aside the previous order and upholding the inclusion of inspection charges in the assessable value for duty calculation under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The case involved a dispute over whether charges paid to RITES for mandatory inspections necessary for marketability should be included in the assessable value. The Tribunal determined that the inspection by RITES was a prerequisite for the sale of the goods, making the charges includible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266504</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>