<?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>1985 (4) TMI 165 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72236</link>
    <description>For excise valuation, a genuine trade discount cannot be denied merely because invoicing is not perfectly uniform, and the department must show a factual basis for rejecting the deduction. The goods were sold from the depot rather than the factory gate, and the record did not establish that the discount was retained in full or that the sales were not at arm&#039;s length, so the demand raised on the footing that no discount was admissible was unsustainable. A prior appellate order for an earlier period did not bar fresh proceedings for a subsequent period where additional material and invoice discrepancies were relied upon. The impugned demand and penalty basis were therefore set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Apr 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 May 2011 15:02:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=110515" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (4) TMI 165 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72236</link>
      <description>For excise valuation, a genuine trade discount cannot be denied merely because invoicing is not perfectly uniform, and the department must show a factual basis for rejecting the deduction. The goods were sold from the depot rather than the factory gate, and the record did not establish that the discount was retained in full or that the sales were not at arm&#039;s length, so the demand raised on the footing that no discount was admissible was unsustainable. A prior appellate order for an earlier period did not bar fresh proceedings for a subsequent period where additional material and invoice discrepancies were relied upon. The impugned demand and penalty basis were therefore set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Apr 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72236</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>