<?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>2016 (1) TMI 102 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270310</link>
    <description>The appeals were allowed, granting the appellants a refund for excess duty paid due to the non-inclusion of liquidated damages in the transaction value. The Tribunal emphasized that the transaction value for excise duty purposes should consider the eventual price after factoring in any liquidated damages, as per the definition under the Central Excise Act. This decision aligns with the principle of levying duty on the correct transaction value, even if reduced by contractual provisions such as liquidated damages.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Jan 2016 17:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=411763" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 102 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270310</link>
      <description>The appeals were allowed, granting the appellants a refund for excess duty paid due to the non-inclusion of liquidated damages in the transaction value. The Tribunal emphasized that the transaction value for excise duty purposes should consider the eventual price after factoring in any liquidated damages, as per the definition under the Central Excise Act. This decision aligns with the principle of levying duty on the correct transaction value, even if reduced by contractual provisions such as liquidated damages.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270310</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>