<?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 1051 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357348</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, ruling that notional interest on advance deposits should not be included in the assessable value of final products. The Tribunal emphasized that the tailor-made nature of the goods and the lack of evidence showing the influence of notional interest on pricing supported this decision. This case underscores the importance of considering specific circumstances in assessing assessable values and the relevance of legal precedents in indirect tax matters.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2018 08:34:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=514040" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (3) TMI 1051 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357348</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, ruling that notional interest on advance deposits should not be included in the assessable value of final products. The Tribunal emphasized that the tailor-made nature of the goods and the lack of evidence showing the influence of notional interest on pricing supported this decision. This case underscores the importance of considering specific circumstances in assessing assessable values and the relevance of legal precedents in indirect tax matters.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357348</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>