<?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>2008 (5) TMI 201 - CESTAT Bangalore</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31558</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore ruled that the expenditure incurred by the buyer for supervising the manufacturing process should not be included in the assessable value for excise duty calculation. The Tribunal determined that the buyer&#039;s expenses were for their own quality control and not for the benefit of the appellant, the manufacturer. As a result, the appeals were allowed, the impugned orders were set aside, and consequential relief was granted to the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=70205" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (5) TMI 201 - CESTAT Bangalore</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31558</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore ruled that the expenditure incurred by the buyer for supervising the manufacturing process should not be included in the assessable value for excise duty calculation. The Tribunal determined that the buyer&#039;s expenses were for their own quality control and not for the benefit of the appellant, the manufacturer. As a result, the appeals were allowed, the impugned orders were set aside, and consequential relief was granted to the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31558</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>