<?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>1995 (11) TMI 258 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102546</link>
    <description>Excisable goods cleared to consignment agents for onward sale were not to be valued by reference to the agents&#039; resale price, because the agents acted only on behalf of the manufacturer and were not a separate class of buyers for valuation purposes. Where assessable value had already been correctly determined under Section 4(1)(a) on the basis of factory-gate sales to independent buyers, that value governed subsequent clearances of the same goods, including removals to consignment agents and for captive consumption. The price at which the consignment agents later sold the goods was therefore irrelevant, and the departmental appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:52:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=139592" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (11) TMI 258 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102546</link>
      <description>Excisable goods cleared to consignment agents for onward sale were not to be valued by reference to the agents&#039; resale price, because the agents acted only on behalf of the manufacturer and were not a separate class of buyers for valuation purposes. Where assessable value had already been correctly determined under Section 4(1)(a) on the basis of factory-gate sales to independent buyers, that value governed subsequent clearances of the same goods, including removals to consignment agents and for captive consumption. The price at which the consignment agents later sold the goods was therefore irrelevant, and the departmental appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102546</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>