<?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 (6) TMI 429 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95661</link>
    <description>For contract sales made at the buyer&#039;s premises, the Part II proforma sale price was the relevant assessable value, not the Part I ex-factory dealer price. Freight remained deductible in computing assessable value, even where recovered on an averaged or equalised basis. The lower authorities had no legal basis to deny the deduction or reject the assessable value claimed, and the issues were decided in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:18:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132720" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (6) TMI 429 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95661</link>
      <description>For contract sales made at the buyer&#039;s premises, the Part II proforma sale price was the relevant assessable value, not the Part I ex-factory dealer price. Freight remained deductible in computing assessable value, even where recovered on an averaged or equalised basis. The lower authorities had no legal basis to deny the deduction or reject the assessable value claimed, and the issues were decided in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95661</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>