<?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 (10) TMI 688 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368722</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand for duty and penalty under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal held that handling charges, constituting 1% of the value and shown separately in transaction cost, are not includible in the assessable value for Central Excise duty. The decision clarified that such charges, considered part of transportation costs, should not be subject to duty, emphasizing compliance with statutory provisions and exclusions under the law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Oct 2018 15:03:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=538203" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (10) TMI 688 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368722</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand for duty and penalty under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal held that handling charges, constituting 1% of the value and shown separately in transaction cost, are not includible in the assessable value for Central Excise duty. The decision clarified that such charges, considered part of transportation costs, should not be subject to duty, emphasizing compliance with statutory provisions and exclusions under the law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368722</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>