<?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>2003 (5) TMI 161 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52184</link>
    <description>Inspection charges paid initially by the manufacturer but contractually borne by the buyer and later reimbursed do not form part of the transaction value of excisable goods. The fact that the manufacturer made the upfront payment did not, by itself, make the amount includible where there was no material showing any extra sum retained or any additional recovery for the goods. The exclusion of the inspection charges was therefore correct, and the revenue challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Oct 2010 11:05:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90662" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (5) TMI 161 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52184</link>
      <description>Inspection charges paid initially by the manufacturer but contractually borne by the buyer and later reimbursed do not form part of the transaction value of excisable goods. The fact that the manufacturer made the upfront payment did not, by itself, make the amount includible where there was no material showing any extra sum retained or any additional recovery for the goods. The exclusion of the inspection charges was therefore correct, and the revenue challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52184</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>