<?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>1996 (7) TMI 386 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88206</link>
    <description>For valuation under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975, expenses such as advertisement, printing and stationery, postage, telephone, sales promotion, interest and bank charges could not be excluded from the computation of gross profit where they were part of the overall cost structure and not shown to be non-genuine. A comprehensive view of the manufacturer&#039;s entire expenditure was required to determine the proper notional profit, and the profit reflected in the audited accounts, certified by the auditors, was the correct basis for computation. The exclusion of these expenses was therefore not justified, and the audited accounts could be relied upon.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Sep 2011 18:08:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125272" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (7) TMI 386 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88206</link>
      <description>For valuation under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975, expenses such as advertisement, printing and stationery, postage, telephone, sales promotion, interest and bank charges could not be excluded from the computation of gross profit where they were part of the overall cost structure and not shown to be non-genuine. A comprehensive view of the manufacturer&#039;s entire expenditure was required to determine the proper notional profit, and the profit reflected in the audited accounts, certified by the auditors, was the correct basis for computation. The exclusion of these expenses was therefore not justified, and the audited accounts could be relied upon.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88206</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>