<?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 (8) TMI 162 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87088</link>
    <description>Dealers or resellers were not treated as related persons merely because the dealership arrangement required them to promote the assessee&#039;s sales. Mutuality of interest was not established, and the dealers remained a separate class of buyers from industrial consumers. On that basis, the third proviso to Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not be invoked to discard the declared price and substitute the resale price for assessment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2011 16:46:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124155" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (8) TMI 162 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87088</link>
      <description>Dealers or resellers were not treated as related persons merely because the dealership arrangement required them to promote the assessee&#039;s sales. Mutuality of interest was not established, and the dealers remained a separate class of buyers from industrial consumers. On that basis, the third proviso to Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not be invoked to discard the declared price and substitute the resale price for assessment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87088</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>