<?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 (8) TMI 1003 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103600</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal, affirming the Appellants&#039; right to charge different prices to various classes of buyers. The judgment emphasized considering after-sale services, arm&#039;s length agreements, and quantity discounts in determining the price list for duty assessment. The Tribunal held that different prices charged to distinct categories of distributors and dealers were justified, rejecting the adoption of the highest price for all categories.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2012 18:34:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140639" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (8) TMI 1003 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103600</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal, affirming the Appellants&#039; right to charge different prices to various classes of buyers. The judgment emphasized considering after-sale services, arm&#039;s length agreements, and quantity discounts in determining the price list for duty assessment. The Tribunal held that different prices charged to distinct categories of distributors and dealers were justified, rejecting the adoption of the highest price for all categories.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103600</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>