<?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>2004 (3) TMI 102 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48983</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi ruled that charges for additional testing conducted at the customer&#039;s request and paid for by the customer should not be included in the assessable value of goods. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that such charges, being optional and borne by the customer, do not form part of the assessable value. The decision aligned with previous judgments and established legal principles, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue&#039;s appeal seeking the inclusion of these charges.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Aug 2010 15:16:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87463" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (3) TMI 102 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48983</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi ruled that charges for additional testing conducted at the customer&#039;s request and paid for by the customer should not be included in the assessable value of goods. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that such charges, being optional and borne by the customer, do not form part of the assessable value. The decision aligned with previous judgments and established legal principles, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue&#039;s appeal seeking the inclusion of these charges.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48983</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>