<?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 (2) TMI 678 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271973</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that RDSO charges reimbursed by Railways should be included in the assessable value if goods were not marketable without RDSO testing. Precedents indicated that charges were includible if goods were only saleable post-testing. The adjudicating authority was directed to ascertain if goods were marketable without RDSO testing and adjust duty accordingly based on their findings. This decision resolved the issue of under-valuation concerning the inclusion of inspection charges in the assessable value.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Feb 2016 10:24:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=417323" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (2) TMI 678 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271973</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that RDSO charges reimbursed by Railways should be included in the assessable value if goods were not marketable without RDSO testing. Precedents indicated that charges were includible if goods were only saleable post-testing. The adjudicating authority was directed to ascertain if goods were marketable without RDSO testing and adjust duty accordingly based on their findings. This decision resolved the issue of under-valuation concerning the inclusion of inspection charges in the assessable value.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271973</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>