<?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 369 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88490</link>
    <description>Refund under the Central Excise Act was considered in relation to duty paid on cash discount, special discount and target discount. Rejection of the refund claim merely because duty had been paid knowingly was found unsustainable, as refund entitlement depends on compliance with the governing refund provisions. Cash discount not actually received by the buyer was treated as a permissible component where the discount scheme was known in trade at clearance and uniformly available. Target discount also did not justify rejection on the reasons adopted below, as it was not shown to be unknown to buyers at clearance or not uniformly offered. The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after hearing the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2011 12:33:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125555" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (12) TMI 369 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88490</link>
      <description>Refund under the Central Excise Act was considered in relation to duty paid on cash discount, special discount and target discount. Rejection of the refund claim merely because duty had been paid knowingly was found unsustainable, as refund entitlement depends on compliance with the governing refund provisions. Cash discount not actually received by the buyer was treated as a permissible component where the discount scheme was known in trade at clearance and uniformly available. Target discount also did not justify rejection on the reasons adopted below, as it was not shown to be unknown to buyers at clearance or not uniformly offered. The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after hearing the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88490</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>