<?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 394 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89539</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the appeal in a case concerning the assessable value of tractors sold directly to users in Karnataka and those sold from depots. The appellant&#039;s collection of additional charges like Freight Reimbursement Charges and Tax Suffered amounts was challenged, alleging duty evasion. The court ruled that unless a separate class of buyers at depots was proven, the approved factory gate price should govern transactions, and additional amounts collected for depot sales should not impact this price. The inclusion of &quot;Tax Suffered&quot; amounts from depot buyers in the assessable value was deemed improper, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and rejection of the cross-objection.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2011 18:47:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126601" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (3) TMI 394 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89539</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the appeal in a case concerning the assessable value of tractors sold directly to users in Karnataka and those sold from depots. The appellant&#039;s collection of additional charges like Freight Reimbursement Charges and Tax Suffered amounts was challenged, alleging duty evasion. The court ruled that unless a separate class of buyers at depots was proven, the approved factory gate price should govern transactions, and additional amounts collected for depot sales should not impact this price. The inclusion of &quot;Tax Suffered&quot; amounts from depot buyers in the assessable value was deemed improper, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and rejection of the cross-objection.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89539</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>