<?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>2008 (1) TMI 40 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3216</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and providing consequential relief. The decision emphasized the significance of contractual agreements and ruled that advertising expenses incurred by another company should not be added to the assessable value of goods supplied under contract, particularly when the contract price is undisputed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 May 2022 16:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=42568" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 40 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3216</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and providing consequential relief. The decision emphasized the significance of contractual agreements and ruled that advertising expenses incurred by another company should not be added to the assessable value of goods supplied under contract, particularly when the contract price is undisputed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3216</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>