<?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>2004 (5) TMI 145 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52913</link>
    <description>Liquidated damages received because buyers failed to lift allocated molasses do not form part of the assessable value where they arise from breach of the supply arrangement rather than the price of goods cleared. Earlier Tribunal decisions treated such damages as separate from consideration for the excisable goods. Accordingly, the damages were not includible in the valuation of molasses, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Oct 2010 14:07:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91390" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (5) TMI 145 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52913</link>
      <description>Liquidated damages received because buyers failed to lift allocated molasses do not form part of the assessable value where they arise from breach of the supply arrangement rather than the price of goods cleared. Earlier Tribunal decisions treated such damages as separate from consideration for the excisable goods. Accordingly, the damages were not includible in the valuation of molasses, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52913</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>