<?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>2006 (12) TMI 48 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1383</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, ruling that the fixed facility charges paid for storage tanks were not eligible for credit as part of the transaction value for liquid gas. The appellants&#039; argument that the charges were duty-paid and time-barred was rejected due to insufficient evidence of compliance with documentation requirements. The decision was issued on 29-12-2006.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40794" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (12) TMI 48 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1383</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, ruling that the fixed facility charges paid for storage tanks were not eligible for credit as part of the transaction value for liquid gas. The appellants&#039; argument that the charges were duty-paid and time-barred was rejected due to insufficient evidence of compliance with documentation requirements. The decision was issued on 29-12-2006.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1383</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>