<?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 200 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91787</link>
    <description>Where goods were sold only in retail, Rule 6(a) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 permitted a reasonable abatement from the retail price to derive the wholesale value and assessable value, and a 5% deduction previously accepted in earlier proceedings was treated as valid. Disallowing any deduction would have meant assessing duty on retail price itself rather than on wholesale value. On limitation, the extended period could not be invoked because the Department already knew the retail sale pattern, dealer margin, price lists, and returns, and suppression of facts was not proved. The assessee&#039;s valuation was upheld and the limitation objection failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Oct 2011 18:28:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128849" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (5) TMI 200 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91787</link>
      <description>Where goods were sold only in retail, Rule 6(a) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 permitted a reasonable abatement from the retail price to derive the wholesale value and assessable value, and a 5% deduction previously accepted in earlier proceedings was treated as valid. Disallowing any deduction would have meant assessing duty on retail price itself rather than on wholesale value. On limitation, the extended period could not be invoked because the Department already knew the retail sale pattern, dealer margin, price lists, and returns, and suppression of facts was not proved. The assessee&#039;s valuation was upheld and the limitation objection failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91787</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>