<?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 (6) TMI 255 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90111</link>
    <description>Arm&#039;s length contracted factory-gate prices approved in Part II price lists were treated as the assessable value under section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The text states that contracted wholesale buyers do not form a separate class merely because of a private contract or their location, unless a legally relevant distinction or extra-commercial consideration is shown. It further notes that post-1-4-1994 procedural changes did not alter the substantive valuation rule, which continued to require determination of the normal price at the factory gate. On the stated facts, the approved Part II prices were accepted as the proper assessable value.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Oct 2011 14:59:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127173" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (6) TMI 255 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90111</link>
      <description>Arm&#039;s length contracted factory-gate prices approved in Part II price lists were treated as the assessable value under section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The text states that contracted wholesale buyers do not form a separate class merely because of a private contract or their location, unless a legally relevant distinction or extra-commercial consideration is shown. It further notes that post-1-4-1994 procedural changes did not alter the substantive valuation rule, which continued to require determination of the normal price at the factory gate. On the stated facts, the approved Part II prices were accepted as the proper assessable value.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90111</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>