<?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 (6) TMI 690 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103537</link>
    <description>Only a genuine, uniformly known trade discount passed on in the ordinary course of wholesale trade is deductible from assessable value; a discount diverted as area sales commission or otherwise linked to post-clearance obligations is not fully deductible, and only the uniform 10% discount was allowed. Suppression of the differential discounting arrangement, the commission diversion, and undisclosed correction of duplicate gate passes amounted to wilful mis-statement and justified invocation of the extended limitation provision. Reimbursement of dealers&#039; advertisement expenses was not includible in assessable value because it was only a partial reimbursement, no abatement was claimed, and no flow back of sale price was shown. The penalty was sustained because the conduct was treated as deliberate and evasive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2012 15:21:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140576" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (6) TMI 690 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103537</link>
      <description>Only a genuine, uniformly known trade discount passed on in the ordinary course of wholesale trade is deductible from assessable value; a discount diverted as area sales commission or otherwise linked to post-clearance obligations is not fully deductible, and only the uniform 10% discount was allowed. Suppression of the differential discounting arrangement, the commission diversion, and undisclosed correction of duplicate gate passes amounted to wilful mis-statement and justified invocation of the extended limitation provision. Reimbursement of dealers&#039; advertisement expenses was not includible in assessable value because it was only a partial reimbursement, no abatement was claimed, and no flow back of sale price was shown. The penalty was sustained because the conduct was treated as deliberate and evasive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103537</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>