<?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 (3) TMI 222 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83211</link>
    <description>Freight administrative charges recovered from dealers were treated as additional consideration, not deductible transport cost, because they were not shown in the price lists or invoices and the record did not establish them as post-delivery expenditure. Applying the valuation scheme under Section 4 read with Rule 5, the charges were added to the wholesale price for assessable value purposes. On penalty, Rule 209 was held inapplicable for the earlier period, while suppression of the additional consideration justified action under Rule 9(2). The majority sustained penalty in principle but reduced it as excessive; the dissent would have confined it more narrowly to the amount relatable to each factory.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:10:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120356" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (3) TMI 222 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83211</link>
      <description>Freight administrative charges recovered from dealers were treated as additional consideration, not deductible transport cost, because they were not shown in the price lists or invoices and the record did not establish them as post-delivery expenditure. Applying the valuation scheme under Section 4 read with Rule 5, the charges were added to the wholesale price for assessable value purposes. On penalty, Rule 209 was held inapplicable for the earlier period, while suppression of the additional consideration justified action under Rule 9(2). The majority sustained penalty in principle but reduced it as excessive; the dissent would have confined it more narrowly to the amount relatable to each factory.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83211</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>