<?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>2009 (4) TMI 391 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76532</link>
    <description>Quantity discount passed on to dealers was deductible from sale price for assessable value under central excise law, because the earlier finding on passing of the discount had attained finality and the remand was confined only to fresh examination of quantification evidence. The lower authorities erred by treating the discount as not known to buyers at clearance and by rejecting the deduction for want of further documentary proof, despite the Chartered Accountant&#039;s certificate and supporting material already on record. By travelling beyond the limited scope of remand, they misdirected themselves, so the demand raised on disallowance of the discount could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=114739" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (4) TMI 391 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76532</link>
      <description>Quantity discount passed on to dealers was deductible from sale price for assessable value under central excise law, because the earlier finding on passing of the discount had attained finality and the remand was confined only to fresh examination of quantification evidence. The lower authorities erred by treating the discount as not known to buyers at clearance and by rejecting the deduction for want of further documentary proof, despite the Chartered Accountant&#039;s certificate and supporting material already on record. By travelling beyond the limited scope of remand, they misdirected themselves, so the demand raised on disallowance of the discount could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76532</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>