<?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>1996 (7) TMI 390 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90336</link>
    <description>Purported sales of colour TV sets through intermediary concerns were found to be sham, not genuine principal-to-principal transactions, because the surrounding circumstances showed paper intermediation and lack of arm&#039;s length dealing. On that basis, valuation on NELCO&#039;s purchase prices was upheld. Wilful suppression of the true price sustained invocation of the extended limitation period under the proviso to section 11A, even though the notice did not expressly cite the proviso. Sales tax and excise duty were deductible from assessable value, and penalty was justified, with the matter remanded for recomputation of differential duty and penalty on the reassessed value.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2011 17:07:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127398" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (7) TMI 390 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90336</link>
      <description>Purported sales of colour TV sets through intermediary concerns were found to be sham, not genuine principal-to-principal transactions, because the surrounding circumstances showed paper intermediation and lack of arm&#039;s length dealing. On that basis, valuation on NELCO&#039;s purchase prices was upheld. Wilful suppression of the true price sustained invocation of the extended limitation period under the proviso to section 11A, even though the notice did not expressly cite the proviso. Sales tax and excise duty were deductible from assessable value, and penalty was justified, with the matter remanded for recomputation of differential duty and penalty on the reassessed value.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90336</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>