<?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 (3) TMI 1096 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176739</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Deputy Commissioner&#039;s decision to demand duty of Rs. 3,34,145 with interest and penalty. The Tribunal held that the duty actually payable should be deducted to determine assessable value, even if it exceeded the reimbursement rate, aligning with previous judgments in the appellant&#039;s favor. The decision emphasized consistency with legal interpretations and past rulings, ultimately finding the impugned order unsustainable and ruling in favor of the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Dec 2015 20:19:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=410863" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (3) TMI 1096 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176739</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Deputy Commissioner&#039;s decision to demand duty of Rs. 3,34,145 with interest and penalty. The Tribunal held that the duty actually payable should be deducted to determine assessable value, even if it exceeded the reimbursement rate, aligning with previous judgments in the appellant&#039;s favor. The decision emphasized consistency with legal interpretations and past rulings, ultimately finding the impugned order unsustainable and ruling in favor of the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176739</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>