<?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>2018 (3) TMI 484 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356781</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the advertisement expenses reimbursed by wholesalers were not subject to excise duty levy. The decision was based on the finding that the advertisements were made on behalf of the local dealers for sales promotion, constituting reimbursement rather than expenses. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal filed by the appellant was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2018 17:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=512207" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (3) TMI 484 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356781</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the advertisement expenses reimbursed by wholesalers were not subject to excise duty levy. The decision was based on the finding that the advertisements were made on behalf of the local dealers for sales promotion, constituting reimbursement rather than expenses. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal filed by the appellant was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356781</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>