<?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>1987 (2) TMI 334 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74175</link>
    <description>The sale price of primary bulk turpentine was held to be uninfluenced by extra-commercial considerations, so invoice value could be accepted for exemption purposes. The combined sale-and-purchase arrangement with distilled turpentine did not, by itself, show a non-commercial relationship or lack of arm&#039;s length dealing. The clause requiring any shortfall to be made up in the next year at the earlier rate was treated as a normal commercial term, and comparable first-year pricing, packing and handling adjustments, absence of any flow-back of proceeds, and only a nominal security deposit all supported the finding that the agreed price was the sole consideration. The department failed to justify interference, and the appeals were not maintainable on merits against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Jun 2011 12:15:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=112454" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (2) TMI 334 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74175</link>
      <description>The sale price of primary bulk turpentine was held to be uninfluenced by extra-commercial considerations, so invoice value could be accepted for exemption purposes. The combined sale-and-purchase arrangement with distilled turpentine did not, by itself, show a non-commercial relationship or lack of arm&#039;s length dealing. The clause requiring any shortfall to be made up in the next year at the earlier rate was treated as a normal commercial term, and comparable first-year pricing, packing and handling adjustments, absence of any flow-back of proceeds, and only a nominal security deposit all supported the finding that the agreed price was the sole consideration. The department failed to justify interference, and the appeals were not maintainable on merits against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74175</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>