<?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 (12) TMI 47 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32220</link>
    <description>Where excisable goods were sold at the factory gate on a transaction value basis and freight was shown separately in the invoices, assessable value had to be determined under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Recourse to valuation rules was not warranted unless value could not be determined under the principal provision. The special requirement of empty return movement of tankers did not justify adding return freight to the assessable value, and mechanical reliance on a Board circular without independent application of mind was improper. Return fare for empty tankers was therefore not includible, and valuation under Rule 5 was unwarranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 25 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=70862" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (12) TMI 47 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32220</link>
      <description>Where excisable goods were sold at the factory gate on a transaction value basis and freight was shown separately in the invoices, assessable value had to be determined under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Recourse to valuation rules was not warranted unless value could not be determined under the principal provision. The special requirement of empty return movement of tankers did not justify adding return freight to the assessable value, and mechanical reliance on a Board circular without independent application of mind was improper. Return fare for empty tankers was therefore not includible, and valuation under Rule 5 was unwarranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32220</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>