<?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 1203 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105282</link>
    <description>Assessable value under central excise was required to reflect the price actually prevailing for the relevant class of buyers, where sales were on an arm&#039;s length, principal-to-principal basis and no extra-commercial consideration affected the price. Molasses sold for manufacture of industrial alcohol formed a distinct market class, so the higher price charged by another seller to cattle feed manufacturers could not be adopted for valuation. The operative price for assessment was the price fixed and charged for industrial alcohol manufacturers, and the Revenue&#039;s attempt to substitute the higher cattle-feed price was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2012 11:05:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142320" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (8) TMI 1203 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105282</link>
      <description>Assessable value under central excise was required to reflect the price actually prevailing for the relevant class of buyers, where sales were on an arm&#039;s length, principal-to-principal basis and no extra-commercial consideration affected the price. Molasses sold for manufacture of industrial alcohol formed a distinct market class, so the higher price charged by another seller to cattle feed manufacturers could not be adopted for valuation. The operative price for assessment was the price fixed and charged for industrial alcohol manufacturers, and the Revenue&#039;s attempt to substitute the higher cattle-feed price was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105282</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>