<?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>1992 (3) TMI 176 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81707</link>
    <description>Related person status under the valuation provision cannot be presumed from distributorship alone; it requires proof of statutory association and mutuality of interest, which was not shown here. The declared discount was deductible as trade discount because it was known in the price lists and before removal of the goods, and the record did not establish that the amounts passed to stockists were service charges or commission. On limitation, the earliest demand was time-barred after the amended notice period, while later demands were only partly within time. The valuation dispute was therefore resolved in favour of the assessee and the impugned demands were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Jun 2019 13:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118852" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (3) TMI 176 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81707</link>
      <description>Related person status under the valuation provision cannot be presumed from distributorship alone; it requires proof of statutory association and mutuality of interest, which was not shown here. The declared discount was deductible as trade discount because it was known in the price lists and before removal of the goods, and the record did not establish that the amounts passed to stockists were service charges or commission. On limitation, the earliest demand was time-barred after the amended notice period, while later demands were only partly within time. The valuation dispute was therefore resolved in favour of the assessee and the impugned demands were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81707</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>