<?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 (1) TMI 311 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88320</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi set aside the impugned orders confirming demands of duties on medicines manufactured by the appellant during specific periods. The Tribunal held that the appellant correctly calculated duty based on the statutory retail price after deducting the duty element and the statutory 15% discount, in compliance with the notification requirements. Emphasizing that the statutory price list should reflect the retail price at which the medicines are ordinarily sold, the Tribunal rejected the argument that the statutory price and the actual selling price should be equal. The appeals were allowed, and the cross-objection was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Sep 2011 18:07:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125385" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (1) TMI 311 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88320</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi set aside the impugned orders confirming demands of duties on medicines manufactured by the appellant during specific periods. The Tribunal held that the appellant correctly calculated duty based on the statutory retail price after deducting the duty element and the statutory 15% discount, in compliance with the notification requirements. Emphasizing that the statutory price list should reflect the retail price at which the medicines are ordinarily sold, the Tribunal rejected the argument that the statutory price and the actual selling price should be equal. The appeals were allowed, and the cross-objection was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88320</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>