<?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>1990 (9) TMI 176 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80855</link>
    <description>Repeated disclosure of the distributorship agreement, discount structure and buyer obligations meant the department could not establish suppression of material facts, so the extended limitation period was unavailable and the show cause notice was time-barred. On valuation, buyer-funded advertisement and sales promotion expenses could be added to assessable value only if the transaction was shown, on the real contract and conduct, to be something other than a genuine principal-to-principal sale. Because the agreement suggested outright sale and the record did not support a flat addition of promotional , the proposed inclusion was not sustainable. The matter was therefore remanded for limited enquiry into the true nature of the transaction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Jun 2011 17:20:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118000" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (9) TMI 176 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80855</link>
      <description>Repeated disclosure of the distributorship agreement, discount structure and buyer obligations meant the department could not establish suppression of material facts, so the extended limitation period was unavailable and the show cause notice was time-barred. On valuation, buyer-funded advertisement and sales promotion expenses could be added to assessable value only if the transaction was shown, on the real contract and conduct, to be something other than a genuine principal-to-principal sale. Because the agreement suggested outright sale and the record did not support a flat addition of promotional , the proposed inclusion was not sustainable. The matter was therefore remanded for limited enquiry into the true nature of the transaction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80855</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>