<?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 1054 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271262</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the recovery of transport charges separately through debit notes, correlating with the excise invoice details, does not warrant inclusion in the transaction value for duty payment purposes. The appellant successfully argued that the separate billing of transport charges fulfilled the requirements of the Central Excise Valuation Rules. Relying on precedents and legislative changes, the Tribunal concluded that unless explicitly included in the sale of goods, transport charges should not be added to the transaction value. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant received consequential benefits as the impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 May 2016 13:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=414892" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 1054 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271262</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the recovery of transport charges separately through debit notes, correlating with the excise invoice details, does not warrant inclusion in the transaction value for duty payment purposes. The appellant successfully argued that the separate billing of transport charges fulfilled the requirements of the Central Excise Valuation Rules. Relying on precedents and legislative changes, the Tribunal concluded that unless explicitly included in the sale of goods, transport charges should not be added to the transaction value. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant received consequential benefits as the impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271262</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>