<?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 (10) TMI 383 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333363</link>
    <description>Buyer-supplied packing material is not includible in the assessable value of glass bottles for central excise valuation when the manufacturer&#039;s own packing was unsuitable. The Tribunal noted that the issue was already settled by the Supreme Court and applied that principle to exclude the cost of the packing materials supplied by the customer. The valuation demand was therefore rejected, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Oct 2016 15:15:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=444420" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 383 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333363</link>
      <description>Buyer-supplied packing material is not includible in the assessable value of glass bottles for central excise valuation when the manufacturer&#039;s own packing was unsuitable. The Tribunal noted that the issue was already settled by the Supreme Court and applied that principle to exclude the cost of the packing materials supplied by the customer. The valuation demand was therefore rejected, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333363</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>