<?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 (11) TMI 7 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350128</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order, as the inclusion of dealer&#039;s commission in the assessable value for credit reversal was deemed legally unjustified. The decision emphasized adherence to the scope of show cause notices and the necessity for procedural fairness and consistency in tax assessments, particularly in valuing goods for credit reversals under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Nov 2017 17:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=494224" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 7 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350128</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order, as the inclusion of dealer&#039;s commission in the assessable value for credit reversal was deemed legally unjustified. The decision emphasized adherence to the scope of show cause notices and the necessity for procedural fairness and consistency in tax assessments, particularly in valuing goods for credit reversals under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350128</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>