<?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 (7) TMI 1563 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459327</link>
    <description>Freight charges separately shown in invoices and recovered from buyers were not includible in the transaction value of excisable goods where, on an identical FOR sales factual matrix, the place of removal was the factory gate. Transportation beyond the factory gate was treated as post-removal activity, so the freight element did not form part of the assessable value for excise duty. The duty demand was therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Dec 2024 19:05:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=781619" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (7) TMI 1563 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459327</link>
      <description>Freight charges separately shown in invoices and recovered from buyers were not includible in the transaction value of excisable goods where, on an identical FOR sales factual matrix, the place of removal was the factory gate. Transportation beyond the factory gate was treated as post-removal activity, so the freight element did not form part of the assessable value for excise duty. The duty demand was therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459327</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>