https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387047 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, holding that charges recovered from customers for delayed payment should not be added to the assessable value as additional consideration. The Tribunal emphasized that financial charges for delayed payments are not part of the assessable value but are subsequent costs post-removal of goods. Citing relevant case law, including the Supreme Court's decision in CCE v. Vikram Detergent Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that financial charges for delayed payments exceeding a specified period are distinct from cash discounts and are aimed at discouraging late payments and compensating for financial costs. As a result, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed. en-us Thu, 01 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Oct 2019 10:47:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387047 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, holding that charges recovered from customers for delayed payment should not be added to the assessable value as additional consideration. The Tribunal emphasized that financial charges for delayed payments are not part of the assessable value but are subsequent costs post-removal of goods. Citing relevant case law, including the Supreme Court's decision in CCE v. Vikram Detergent Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that financial charges for delayed payments exceeding a specified period are distinct from cash discounts and are aimed at discouraging late payments and compensating for financial costs. As a result, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 01 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387047