<?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 229 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87390</link>
    <description>Where goods are sold under a separate transportation arrangement and delivered at the buyer&#039;s premises, only actual transport expense is deductible and the assessee must disclose the delivery structure; on the facts, the excess realised was includible in assessable value. Non-disclosure of the separate transport contract and billing amounted to suppression, supporting extended limitation and penalty, although the demand beyond five years was time-barred. For chlorine, which was not chargeable on an ad valorem basis during the relevant period, the alleged excess realisation could not be subjected to duty, and limited relief was warranted on verification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Sep 2011 16:43:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124457" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (8) TMI 229 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87390</link>
      <description>Where goods are sold under a separate transportation arrangement and delivered at the buyer&#039;s premises, only actual transport expense is deductible and the assessee must disclose the delivery structure; on the facts, the excess realised was includible in assessable value. Non-disclosure of the separate transport contract and billing amounted to suppression, supporting extended limitation and penalty, although the demand beyond five years was time-barred. For chlorine, which was not chargeable on an ad valorem basis during the relevant period, the alleged excess realisation could not be subjected to duty, and limited relief was warranted on verification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87390</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>