<?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 172 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4343</link>
    <description>Abatement from assessable value on account of interest on receivables was upheld, as the Tribunal followed its earlier view in the same manufacturing arrangement and rejected the Revenue&#039;s challenge. Compensation for breakages after removal of goods was held not deductible from assessable value, since damage occurring after clearance does not reduce assessable value; this point went against the assessee. Excess duty paid during provisional assessment was allowed to be adjusted against the demand without applying unjust enrichment, because the payment predated the applicability of Rule 9B(5) to refunds on finalisation of provisional assessment. The appeal succeeded only on the breakages issue and was otherwise dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=43686" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 172 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4343</link>
      <description>Abatement from assessable value on account of interest on receivables was upheld, as the Tribunal followed its earlier view in the same manufacturing arrangement and rejected the Revenue&#039;s challenge. Compensation for breakages after removal of goods was held not deductible from assessable value, since damage occurring after clearance does not reduce assessable value; this point went against the assessee. Excess duty paid during provisional assessment was allowed to be adjusted against the demand without applying unjust enrichment, because the payment predated the applicability of Rule 9B(5) to refunds on finalisation of provisional assessment. The appeal succeeded only on the breakages issue and was otherwise dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4343</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>