<?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>1989 (12) TMI 190 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80397</link>
    <description>Excise valuation under arm&#039;s-length wholesale sales requires demands to stay within the normal limitation period unless suppression or concealment is proved; the text states that valid licensing, approved price lists, and proper returns prevented invocation of the longer period. It also explains that buyers are not related persons merely because of commercial dealings or bulk purchases, absent mutuality of interest or a profit-sharing arrangement. Further, different wholesale prices for distinct buyer classes do not justify adopting a higher resale price as assessable value unless the transaction is shown to be non-arm&#039;s length or manipulated. The text concludes that duty demands were unsustainable beyond the lawful limit, subject to credit for amounts voluntarily collected and adjusted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2011 15:42:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=117543" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (12) TMI 190 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80397</link>
      <description>Excise valuation under arm&#039;s-length wholesale sales requires demands to stay within the normal limitation period unless suppression or concealment is proved; the text states that valid licensing, approved price lists, and proper returns prevented invocation of the longer period. It also explains that buyers are not related persons merely because of commercial dealings or bulk purchases, absent mutuality of interest or a profit-sharing arrangement. Further, different wholesale prices for distinct buyer classes do not justify adopting a higher resale price as assessable value unless the transaction is shown to be non-arm&#039;s length or manipulated. The text concludes that duty demands were unsustainable beyond the lawful limit, subject to credit for amounts voluntarily collected and adjusted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80397</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>