<?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 148 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52273</link>
    <description>Differential transit insurance recovered from buyers at a standard rate, above the actual premium paid, was held not includible in the assessable value of manufactured goods for central excise duty. The only supporting material for the demand was a statement suggesting excess recovery covered insurance of raw materials and finished stock, but the insurance policy for the relevant period showed coverage only for transit from the factory to buyers. The principle applied to equalised freight was extended to equalised insurance, so mere recovery in excess of actual expenditure did not justify value addition. The duty demand and impugned orders were therefore set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Oct 2010 16:34:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90751" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (6) TMI 148 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52273</link>
      <description>Differential transit insurance recovered from buyers at a standard rate, above the actual premium paid, was held not includible in the assessable value of manufactured goods for central excise duty. The only supporting material for the demand was a statement suggesting excess recovery covered insurance of raw materials and finished stock, but the insurance policy for the relevant period showed coverage only for transit from the factory to buyers. The principle applied to equalised freight was extended to equalised insurance, so mere recovery in excess of actual expenditure did not justify value addition. The duty demand and impugned orders were therefore set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52273</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>