<?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>2024 (3) TMI 635 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450854</link>
    <description>After-sales service and pre-delivery inspection charges reimbursed to dealers were treated as not forming part of the assessable value for central excise, because the vehicles were sold at the transaction price and the dealer, not the manufacturer, performed those services. The Tribunal relied on its earlier decision in the assessee&#039;s own case and held that reimbursement of such expenses did not amount to additional consideration flowing to the manufacturer. It also noted that the Department had not established any fresh basis beyond the show-cause notice. On that settled footing, the duty demand failed, and the consequential interest and penalty also could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2024 13:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=746974" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (3) TMI 635 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450854</link>
      <description>After-sales service and pre-delivery inspection charges reimbursed to dealers were treated as not forming part of the assessable value for central excise, because the vehicles were sold at the transaction price and the dealer, not the manufacturer, performed those services. The Tribunal relied on its earlier decision in the assessee&#039;s own case and held that reimbursement of such expenses did not amount to additional consideration flowing to the manufacturer. It also noted that the Department had not established any fresh basis beyond the show-cause notice. On that settled footing, the duty demand failed, and the consequential interest and penalty also could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450854</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>