<?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>1991 (8) TMI 190 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81490</link>
    <description>Under Rule 6(a), when goods are sold at retail, the assessable value is to be derived by reducing the retail price by an amount reasonably necessary to reach the notional wholesale price, having regard to trade practice and comparable market data. On that basis, the dealers&#039; margin deduction was treated as allowable because it reflected the wholesale equivalent rather than a head-by-head dissection of service expenses. The document also states that an optional post-sale service-material security deposit, collected to reimburse servicing material costs, had no nexus with manufacture and was not price consideration; the interest earned on that deposit likewise was outside assessable value.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Jun 2011 15:46:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118635" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (8) TMI 190 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81490</link>
      <description>Under Rule 6(a), when goods are sold at retail, the assessable value is to be derived by reducing the retail price by an amount reasonably necessary to reach the notional wholesale price, having regard to trade practice and comparable market data. On that basis, the dealers&#039; margin deduction was treated as allowable because it reflected the wholesale equivalent rather than a head-by-head dissection of service expenses. The document also states that an optional post-sale service-material security deposit, collected to reimburse servicing material costs, had no nexus with manufacture and was not price consideration; the interest earned on that deposit likewise was outside assessable value.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81490</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>