<?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 (6) TMI 575 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328866</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal and upheld the respondent&#039;s entitlement to deduct freight expenses in excise duty calculations for goods sold FOR destination. The decision clarified the application of Section 4(1)(b) and Rule 5, emphasizing the need to show transportation costs separately in invoices to claim deductions when goods are sold for delivery at a place other than the place of removal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Nov 2016 16:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=431885" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 575 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328866</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal and upheld the respondent&#039;s entitlement to deduct freight expenses in excise duty calculations for goods sold FOR destination. The decision clarified the application of Section 4(1)(b) and Rule 5, emphasizing the need to show transportation costs separately in invoices to claim deductions when goods are sold for delivery at a place other than the place of removal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328866</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>