<?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>1995 (9) TMI 183 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84843</link>
    <description>A concessional invoice price offered to employees under a special arrangement could not be accepted as the assessable value for excise purposes. Section 4 required valuation on the basis of the normal price, meaning the price ordinarily charged in wholesale trade to a buyer who is not a related person and where price is the sole consideration. Sales to employees at a reduced price were not sales in the course of wholesale trade, so the special price could not replace the statutory valuation basis. Notification No. 120/75-C.E. could not override the valuation principles under Section 4, and the reduced employee price was rejected as assessable value.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Aug 2011 11:18:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121910" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (9) TMI 183 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84843</link>
      <description>A concessional invoice price offered to employees under a special arrangement could not be accepted as the assessable value for excise purposes. Section 4 required valuation on the basis of the normal price, meaning the price ordinarily charged in wholesale trade to a buyer who is not a related person and where price is the sole consideration. Sales to employees at a reduced price were not sales in the course of wholesale trade, so the special price could not replace the statutory valuation basis. Notification No. 120/75-C.E. could not override the valuation principles under Section 4, and the reduced employee price was rejected as assessable value.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84843</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>