<?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 (10) TMI 330 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90341</link>
    <description>Captively consumed sulphuric acid was to be valued by reference to comparable market prices with reasonable adjustments under the valuation rules. Where the assessee had declared different prices for distinct buyer groups based on distance and transportation factors, the use of an average of the Group A and Group B prices was held to fairly reflect value. The highest declared price for one class of buyers was not required where commercial practice supported differential pricing and earlier valuation principles favoured a fair comparable price without loading captive consumption with unrelated expenses. The assessee&#039;s valuation method was upheld and the contrary orders were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2011 17:19:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127403" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (10) TMI 330 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90341</link>
      <description>Captively consumed sulphuric acid was to be valued by reference to comparable market prices with reasonable adjustments under the valuation rules. Where the assessee had declared different prices for distinct buyer groups based on distance and transportation factors, the use of an average of the Group A and Group B prices was held to fairly reflect value. The highest declared price for one class of buyers was not required where commercial practice supported differential pricing and earlier valuation principles favoured a fair comparable price without loading captive consumption with unrelated expenses. The assessee&#039;s valuation method was upheld and the contrary orders were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90341</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>