<?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 (5) TMI 637 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97520</link>
    <description>Quantity discount could not be denied on a ground not raised in the show-cause notice or decided by the lower authority. The notices proceeded on the basis that the discount was inadmissible because the buyers had not met the stipulated minimum quantity or time condition, but the appellate authority rejected the claim for a different reason, namely alleged absence of evidence that the price difference was recovered. That new basis was outside the original controversy and could not sustain denial of the relief. The assessee was therefore entitled to the quantity discount claimed, and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:08:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134578" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (5) TMI 637 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97520</link>
      <description>Quantity discount could not be denied on a ground not raised in the show-cause notice or decided by the lower authority. The notices proceeded on the basis that the discount was inadmissible because the buyers had not met the stipulated minimum quantity or time condition, but the appellate authority rejected the claim for a different reason, namely alleged absence of evidence that the price difference was recovered. That new basis was outside the original controversy and could not sustain denial of the relief. The assessee was therefore entitled to the quantity discount claimed, and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97520</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>