<?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>2001 (3) TMI 426 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96093</link>
    <description>Bona fide regional price differences were accepted as commercial prices for excise valuation, because there was no evidence that the lower prices were favoured or artificially depressed. Each price charged to the relevant class of buyers was therefore required to be treated as the assessable value, and valuation based on the highest ex-factory price was unsustainable. On that footing, the duty demand and penalty could not be maintained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Dec 2011 12:09:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133152" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (3) TMI 426 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96093</link>
      <description>Bona fide regional price differences were accepted as commercial prices for excise valuation, because there was no evidence that the lower prices were favoured or artificially depressed. Each price charged to the relevant class of buyers was therefore required to be treated as the assessable value, and valuation based on the highest ex-factory price was unsustainable. On that footing, the duty demand and penalty could not be maintained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96093</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>