<?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>1993 (7) TMI 188 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82778</link>
    <description>Reimbursements for free after-sales service and pre-delivery inspection were not includible in assessable value for wholesale dealer sales where the transactions were on a principal-to-principal basis, title passed on delivery, and no flow-back was shown; the amount was treated as an admissible discount for that category. For direct sales to DGS&amp;D, CSD and Government departments, the later reimbursement to dealers was not a discount because the dealers were not parties to those transactions and the disclosed price was not the sole consideration; it was therefore includible in valuation. However, duty for that category had to be recomputed on a cum-duty basis by working backwards. The appeals therefore succeeded only to that limited extent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jul 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Jul 2011 12:36:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=119923" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (7) TMI 188 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82778</link>
      <description>Reimbursements for free after-sales service and pre-delivery inspection were not includible in assessable value for wholesale dealer sales where the transactions were on a principal-to-principal basis, title passed on delivery, and no flow-back was shown; the amount was treated as an admissible discount for that category. For direct sales to DGS&amp;D, CSD and Government departments, the later reimbursement to dealers was not a discount because the dealers were not parties to those transactions and the disclosed price was not the sole consideration; it was therefore includible in valuation. However, duty for that category had to be recomputed on a cum-duty basis by working backwards. The appeals therefore succeeded only to that limited extent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jul 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82778</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>