<?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>2022 (8) TMI 493 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426254</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order-in-Appeal and providing consequential relief to the gas manufacturer appellant. It was held that Cylinder Holding Charges (CHC) should not be included in the assessable value for central excise duty calculation, as they were deemed a penalty for delayed cylinder return, not an additional consideration for sale. The Tribunal relied on relevant rules and previous decisions to support this interpretation, concluding that the impugned order was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Aug 2022 16:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=687710" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (8) TMI 493 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426254</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order-in-Appeal and providing consequential relief to the gas manufacturer appellant. It was held that Cylinder Holding Charges (CHC) should not be included in the assessable value for central excise duty calculation, as they were deemed a penalty for delayed cylinder return, not an additional consideration for sale. The Tribunal relied on relevant rules and previous decisions to support this interpretation, concluding that the impugned order was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426254</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>