<?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 (4) TMI 858 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751677</link>
    <description>Freight retained after factory-gate removal was not includible in assessable value where VAT was paid on the factory-gate price and delivery at buyers&#039; premises did not shift the place of removal. Separate recovery and partial retention of freight did not alter the valuation basis. The valuation demand was therefore set aside on merits. The extended limitation period was also unavailable because the dispute involved bona fide legal interpretation of freight valuation, without established suppression. Freight incurred up to the place of removal is excluded from assessable value, and an interpretative valuation dispute alone does not justify extended-period demand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2024 09:11:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=750784" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (4) TMI 858 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751677</link>
      <description>Freight retained after factory-gate removal was not includible in assessable value where VAT was paid on the factory-gate price and delivery at buyers&#039; premises did not shift the place of removal. Separate recovery and partial retention of freight did not alter the valuation basis. The valuation demand was therefore set aside on merits. The extended limitation period was also unavailable because the dispute involved bona fide legal interpretation of freight valuation, without established suppression. Freight incurred up to the place of removal is excluded from assessable value, and an interpretative valuation dispute alone does not justify extended-period demand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751677</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>