<?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 (6) TMI 128 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52238</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, stating that inspection charges borne by the buyer and paid to a third-party inspector should not be included in the assessable value for Central Excise duty calculation. They based their decision on previous judgments and the specific circumstances of the case, ultimately allowing the appeals filed by the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Oct 2010 13:24:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90716" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (6) TMI 128 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52238</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, stating that inspection charges borne by the buyer and paid to a third-party inspector should not be included in the assessable value for Central Excise duty calculation. They based their decision on previous judgments and the specific circumstances of the case, ultimately allowing the appeals filed by the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52238</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>