<?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>2019 (3) TMI 777 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376756</link>
    <description>Freight charges paid for the return journey of empty vehicles after delivery of goods were held not to form part of the assessable value. The earlier departmental circular of 01.07.2002 had treated such return fare as includible, but the later circular of 19.05.2010 withdrew that view and clarified that the cost need not be added. The cited Supreme Court line of authority also supported exclusion of these charges from valuation. Accordingly, the demand based on inclusion of return-freight charges was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Mar 2019 07:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=563018" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (3) TMI 777 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376756</link>
      <description>Freight charges paid for the return journey of empty vehicles after delivery of goods were held not to form part of the assessable value. The earlier departmental circular of 01.07.2002 had treated such return fare as includible, but the later circular of 19.05.2010 withdrew that view and clarified that the cost need not be added. The cited Supreme Court line of authority also supported exclusion of these charges from valuation. Accordingly, the demand based on inclusion of return-freight charges was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376756</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>