<?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 (8) TMI 1101 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384912</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding that inspection charges paid for by the appellant, even if nominally by customers, are to be included in the assessable value of goods. The decision is based on the comprehensive definition of &#039;transaction value,&#039; emphasizing the inclusion of all costs related to the sale of goods, even if indirectly benefiting the dealer.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Aug 2019 07:43:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=584880" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (8) TMI 1101 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384912</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding that inspection charges paid for by the appellant, even if nominally by customers, are to be included in the assessable value of goods. The decision is based on the comprehensive definition of &#039;transaction value,&#039; emphasizing the inclusion of all costs related to the sale of goods, even if indirectly benefiting the dealer.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384912</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>