<?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>2002 (9) TMI 574 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106517</link>
    <description>Distributor-funded advertisement and sales promotion expenses were treated as the distributor&#039;s own marketing outlay, with no proof that the assessee recovered or controlled those costs, so they were not includible in assessable value. Rental charges for reusable crates were also excluded because Board guidance treated such charges as outside valuation and their inclusion could not rest on a mere challenge to the quantum. Transportation costs for returning empty bottles, and breakages or shortages in the market, were regarded as post-clearance or buyer-incurred expenses without sufficient nexus to manufacture or clearance, so they were not added. Loading charges up to the factory gate were likewise not sustained on the facts, and the differential duty demand on these components failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2012 15:36:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=143537" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (9) TMI 574 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106517</link>
      <description>Distributor-funded advertisement and sales promotion expenses were treated as the distributor&#039;s own marketing outlay, with no proof that the assessee recovered or controlled those costs, so they were not includible in assessable value. Rental charges for reusable crates were also excluded because Board guidance treated such charges as outside valuation and their inclusion could not rest on a mere challenge to the quantum. Transportation costs for returning empty bottles, and breakages or shortages in the market, were regarded as post-clearance or buyer-incurred expenses without sufficient nexus to manufacture or clearance, so they were not added. Loading charges up to the factory gate were likewise not sustained on the facts, and the differential duty demand on these components failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106517</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>