<?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>1994 (1) TMI 155 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83053</link>
    <description>Where the buyer funded essential moulds, dies and testing equipment for tape recorders manufactured to its specifications, the seller&#039;s declared price was not accepted as the normal assessable value because it did not reflect the full intrinsic value of the goods. Valuation had to be redetermined on the basis of the first wholesale sale price, subject to deductions admissible in law, including trade discount where allowable. The evidence was insufficient to treat the buyer as a dummy manufacturer, so duty remained recoverable from the actual manufacturer and the penalty on the buyer was unsustainable. Provisional assessment also meant the demand was not time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 Jul 2011 12:08:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120198" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (1) TMI 155 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83053</link>
      <description>Where the buyer funded essential moulds, dies and testing equipment for tape recorders manufactured to its specifications, the seller&#039;s declared price was not accepted as the normal assessable value because it did not reflect the full intrinsic value of the goods. Valuation had to be redetermined on the basis of the first wholesale sale price, subject to deductions admissible in law, including trade discount where allowable. The evidence was insufficient to treat the buyer as a dummy manufacturer, so duty remained recoverable from the actual manufacturer and the penalty on the buyer was unsustainable. Provisional assessment also meant the demand was not time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83053</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>