<?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>2000 (3) TMI 425 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94579</link>
    <description>Bottle hire charges, security deposit and handling or transport charges were treated as outside assessable value where they were collected through invoices of a separate company and the department failed to show any flow back of profits to the manufacturer. Mere holding-subsidiary relationship was held insufficient to prove undervaluation without real mutuality of interest. The bottle hire arrangement was on a principal-to-principal basis, the bottles were durable and returnable containers, and the sale was on an ex-factory basis without transport being provided by the manufacturer. On these facts, the disputed amounts were not part of the normal price at the factory gate, and the demand and penalty were not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2011 11:37:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131638" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (3) TMI 425 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94579</link>
      <description>Bottle hire charges, security deposit and handling or transport charges were treated as outside assessable value where they were collected through invoices of a separate company and the department failed to show any flow back of profits to the manufacturer. Mere holding-subsidiary relationship was held insufficient to prove undervaluation without real mutuality of interest. The bottle hire arrangement was on a principal-to-principal basis, the bottles were durable and returnable containers, and the sale was on an ex-factory basis without transport being provided by the manufacturer. On these facts, the disputed amounts were not part of the normal price at the factory gate, and the demand and penalty were not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94579</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>