<?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>1999 (5) TMI 148 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91407</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the deduction of cash discount from the assessable value of goods across the board, dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal. It found that cash discount for prompt payment is deductible regardless of individual customer availing it, citing precedents in Bharatia Cutler Hammer Ltd. and Goodlass Nerolac Paints cases. The Revenue failed to distinguish or address these precedents, leading to the affirmation of the deduction of cash discount.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2011 17:35:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128469" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (5) TMI 148 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91407</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the deduction of cash discount from the assessable value of goods across the board, dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal. It found that cash discount for prompt payment is deductible regardless of individual customer availing it, citing precedents in Bharatia Cutler Hammer Ltd. and Goodlass Nerolac Paints cases. The Revenue failed to distinguish or address these precedents, leading to the affirmation of the deduction of cash discount.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91407</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>