<?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 (6) TMI 131 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91844</link>
    <description>Captively consumed goods were to be valued by reference to comparable goods sold in the market under the valuation rules, and no separate quantity discount could be claimed for the captive clearances themselves because there was no sale of those goods. The assessable value was therefore correctly taken from comparable sold goods after deducting the discount actually applicable to those sold goods, and the additional discount claim was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jun 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2011 14:38:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128905" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (6) TMI 131 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91844</link>
      <description>Captively consumed goods were to be valued by reference to comparable goods sold in the market under the valuation rules, and no separate quantity discount could be claimed for the captive clearances themselves because there was no sale of those goods. The assessable value was therefore correctly taken from comparable sold goods after deducting the discount actually applicable to those sold goods, and the additional discount claim was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jun 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91844</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>