<?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 (8) TMI 383 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93031</link>
    <description>Part II price lists under the excise framework do not, by themselves, exclude trade discounts or prove that sales were at negotiated contract prices. The prescribed proforma contemplates deduction of discounts, and filing such a price list does not mean dealers cannot exist or that discounts are unavailable. On that basis, deduction for trade discounts could not be denied merely because the goods were covered by a Part II price list, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Nov 2011 17:55:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130092" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (8) TMI 383 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93031</link>
      <description>Part II price lists under the excise framework do not, by themselves, exclude trade discounts or prove that sales were at negotiated contract prices. The prescribed proforma contemplates deduction of discounts, and filing such a price list does not mean dealers cannot exist or that discounts are unavailable. On that basis, deduction for trade discounts could not be denied merely because the goods were covered by a Part II price list, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93031</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>