<?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>2017 (3) TMI 220 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339717</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that physician samples are subject to duty upon removal, including the special packaging costs in the assessment. However, as duty had already been paid on the incremental cost, and lacking evidence that this cost was not part of the duty on samples, the impugned order was overturned, and the appeals were granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Aug 2017 15:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=460398" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 220 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339717</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that physician samples are subject to duty upon removal, including the special packaging costs in the assessment. However, as duty had already been paid on the incremental cost, and lacking evidence that this cost was not part of the duty on samples, the impugned order was overturned, and the appeals were granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339717</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>