<?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 144 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50246</link>
    <description>A subordinate appellate authority cannot disregard a binding Tribunal decision in the assessee&#039;s own case or depart from the Supreme Court&#039;s view without legal basis. The challenged order, which sustained inclusion of dealer margin attributable to pre-delivery inspection and after-sale services in assessable value, was contrary to the binding precedent and was therefore unsustainable. The addition to assessable value was not upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Aug 2010 15:47:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88726" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (3) TMI 144 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50246</link>
      <description>A subordinate appellate authority cannot disregard a binding Tribunal decision in the assessee&#039;s own case or depart from the Supreme Court&#039;s view without legal basis. The challenged order, which sustained inclusion of dealer margin attributable to pre-delivery inspection and after-sale services in assessable value, was contrary to the binding precedent and was therefore unsustainable. The addition to assessable value was not upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50246</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>