<?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>1998 (1) TMI 137 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87934</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the duty demand on safe deposit lockers, ruling in favor of the appellant. It was determined that sales to banks were retail, while sales to branches and dealers were wholesale. The approved wholesale price at the factory gate included a 14% trade discount, not applicable to retail sales. The judgment emphasized the importance of distinguishing between wholesale and retail sales in assessing Central Excise duty, ultimately allowing the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:34:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125000" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (1) TMI 137 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87934</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the duty demand on safe deposit lockers, ruling in favor of the appellant. It was determined that sales to banks were retail, while sales to branches and dealers were wholesale. The approved wholesale price at the factory gate included a 14% trade discount, not applicable to retail sales. The judgment emphasized the importance of distinguishing between wholesale and retail sales in assessing Central Excise duty, ultimately allowing the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87934</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>