<?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>1997 (6) TMI 167 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87022</link>
    <description>Buyer-funded advertisement and sales promotion expenditure was treated as additional consideration where the arrangement effectively relieved the manufacturer of costs it would otherwise have borne, so it was includible in assessable value. The extended limitation period was also sustained because the shifting of publicity expenditure to the buyer was not fully disclosed and the price-list response did not amount to complete disclosure. Penalty was maintained in principle but reduced as excessive, while confiscation of land, building, plant and machinery was set aside because the adjudication order did not specify a proper statutory basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Aug 2011 18:49:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124089" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (6) TMI 167 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87022</link>
      <description>Buyer-funded advertisement and sales promotion expenditure was treated as additional consideration where the arrangement effectively relieved the manufacturer of costs it would otherwise have borne, so it was includible in assessable value. The extended limitation period was also sustained because the shifting of publicity expenditure to the buyer was not fully disclosed and the price-list response did not amount to complete disclosure. Penalty was maintained in principle but reduced as excessive, while confiscation of land, building, plant and machinery was set aside because the adjudication order did not specify a proper statutory basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87022</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>