<?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 (3) TMI 266 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88394</link>
    <description>Cash discount offered as a prompt payment discount was held admissible where it was in advance, communicated to buyers through circulars, and made uniformly available to all purchasers who satisfied the condition of timely payment. The fact that some buyers failed to make prompt payment and therefore did not qualify for the concession did not by itself render the discount inadmissible. On that basis, the discount was treated as deductible and the appeal was not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Sep 2011 15:29:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125459" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (3) TMI 266 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88394</link>
      <description>Cash discount offered as a prompt payment discount was held admissible where it was in advance, communicated to buyers through circulars, and made uniformly available to all purchasers who satisfied the condition of timely payment. The fact that some buyers failed to make prompt payment and therefore did not qualify for the concession did not by itself render the discount inadmissible. On that basis, the discount was treated as deductible and the appeal was not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88394</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>