<?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>2000 (3) TMI 108 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49979</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled that the disputed items&#039; costs should not be included in the assessable value of the package air conditioner. The matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for reassessment of duty liability, with the discretion to impose penalties if necessary. Both appeals were disposed of based on these findings, addressing the valuation issue and the invokability of the extended period of limitation comprehensively.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 18:15:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88459" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (3) TMI 108 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49979</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled that the disputed items&#039; costs should not be included in the assessable value of the package air conditioner. The matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for reassessment of duty liability, with the discretion to impose penalties if necessary. Both appeals were disposed of based on these findings, addressing the valuation issue and the invokability of the extended period of limitation comprehensively.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49979</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>