<?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>2021 (9) TMI 29 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411684</link>
    <description>FOR destination contracts with door delivery, where the buyer inspects goods at its premises, bears transit risk, and accepts delivery there, freight and transportation up to that point form part of the assessable value for Central Excise. The place of removal is therefore the buyer&#039;s premises when sale is completed only on delivery, so valuation follows the price at the place of sale under the relevant valuation rules. Refunds sanctioned on the legal position and departmental clarification prevailing at the time cannot later be recovered as erroneous merely because the law is subsequently viewed differently. Recovery of the refunded amounts was therefore not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2022 15:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=654452" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (9) TMI 29 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411684</link>
      <description>FOR destination contracts with door delivery, where the buyer inspects goods at its premises, bears transit risk, and accepts delivery there, freight and transportation up to that point form part of the assessable value for Central Excise. The place of removal is therefore the buyer&#039;s premises when sale is completed only on delivery, so valuation follows the price at the place of sale under the relevant valuation rules. Refunds sanctioned on the legal position and departmental clarification prevailing at the time cannot later be recovered as erroneous merely because the law is subsequently viewed differently. Recovery of the refunded amounts was therefore not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411684</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>