<?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>2014 (7) TMI 1183 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180738</link>
    <description>Amounts compulsorily recovered from dealers as a separate technical service fee were treated as part of the sale consideration and included in assessable value because the recovery was not shown to be an optional post-sale service charge. Demand covering the four approved price lists for the relevant period was sustained because the notice challenged the valuation for the full provisional assessment period, and earlier approval of some price lists did not prevent revision on finalisation. Deduction for surcharge on additional sales tax was disallowed because no proof of actual payment was produced. The departmental valuation was upheld on all surviving issues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Apr 2016 11:01:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=422083" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (7) TMI 1183 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180738</link>
      <description>Amounts compulsorily recovered from dealers as a separate technical service fee were treated as part of the sale consideration and included in assessable value because the recovery was not shown to be an optional post-sale service charge. Demand covering the four approved price lists for the relevant period was sustained because the notice challenged the valuation for the full provisional assessment period, and earlier approval of some price lists did not prevent revision on finalisation. Deduction for surcharge on additional sales tax was disallowed because no proof of actual payment was produced. The departmental valuation was upheld on all surviving issues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180738</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>