<?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>2025 (1) TMI 1436 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765371</link>
    <description>Free-of-cost design, drawings and specifications supplied by a buyer to vendors were held not to form part of the assessable value under Central Excise valuation where they served as manufacturing specifications rather than additional consideration for the sale. The analysis distinguished mere layout or dimensional requirements from separately chargeable engineering input, and concluded that only consideration flowing from the buyer to the manufacturer in connection with the sale can be added to assessable value. On that basis, the notional value of the supplied material was excluded, the valuation demand failed, and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Jan 2025 12:28:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=793680" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (1) TMI 1436 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765371</link>
      <description>Free-of-cost design, drawings and specifications supplied by a buyer to vendors were held not to form part of the assessable value under Central Excise valuation where they served as manufacturing specifications rather than additional consideration for the sale. The analysis distinguished mere layout or dimensional requirements from separately chargeable engineering input, and concluded that only consideration flowing from the buyer to the manufacturer in connection with the sale can be added to assessable value. On that basis, the notional value of the supplied material was excluded, the valuation demand failed, and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765371</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>