<?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 (12) TMI 277 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87920</link>
    <description>Amounts recovered from bottlers for co-operative advertisement were not mechanically includible in the assessable value of concentrates where the advertising also benefited the buyers&#039; aerated waters. Only the portion of expenditure actually attributable to enhancing the concentrates&#039; marketability could be added, and that apportionment had to be made on relevant evidence. On limitation, non-disclosure of the second set of invoices showing recovery of advertisement charges supported suppression of the true value with intent to evade duty, so the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) was invocable. The matter required fresh adjudication after determining the attributable advertisement cost.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:02:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124986" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (12) TMI 277 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87920</link>
      <description>Amounts recovered from bottlers for co-operative advertisement were not mechanically includible in the assessable value of concentrates where the advertising also benefited the buyers&#039; aerated waters. Only the portion of expenditure actually attributable to enhancing the concentrates&#039; marketability could be added, and that apportionment had to be made on relevant evidence. On limitation, non-disclosure of the second set of invoices showing recovery of advertisement charges supported suppression of the true value with intent to evade duty, so the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) was invocable. The matter required fresh adjudication after determining the attributable advertisement cost.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87920</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>