<?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 (11) TMI 733 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370390</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner&#039;s rejection regarding excise duty on warranty spares/components. It held that duty was not payable on goods cleared under warranty/replacement, as warranty costs were included in the original equipment value. Ruling based on Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, judicial precedents, and department circular, it emphasized consistency in decisions across Commissionerates. The appellant was granted relief from paying excise duty on warranty goods.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Nov 2018 07:57:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=542312" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (11) TMI 733 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370390</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner&#039;s rejection regarding excise duty on warranty spares/components. It held that duty was not payable on goods cleared under warranty/replacement, as warranty costs were included in the original equipment value. Ruling based on Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, judicial precedents, and department circular, it emphasized consistency in decisions across Commissionerates. The appellant was granted relief from paying excise duty on warranty goods.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370390</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>