<?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 (9) TMI 746 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385978</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) finding that the discount passed by the respondent to BEST was not in exchange for facilities provided by BEST. The agreements with BEST were separate commercial transactions, and no evidence supported the Revenue&#039;s claim of additional consideration. As no contrary evidence was presented by the Revenue, the impugned order was upheld, and the Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Sep 2019 11:13:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=587776" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (9) TMI 746 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385978</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) finding that the discount passed by the respondent to BEST was not in exchange for facilities provided by BEST. The agreements with BEST were separate commercial transactions, and no evidence supported the Revenue&#039;s claim of additional consideration. As no contrary evidence was presented by the Revenue, the impugned order was upheld, and the Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385978</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>