<?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>2003 (2) TMI 287 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107366</link>
    <description>A deduction claimed as trade discount in excise valuation must be supported by clear contemporaneous material showing its nature and basis. An undated circular and invoices that do not disclose the discount were insufficient, and no tangible evidence explained how the discount rate was fixed. On that record, the claim could not be accepted on assumptions, and the order allowing the deduction was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2012 18:43:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144383" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (2) TMI 287 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107366</link>
      <description>A deduction claimed as trade discount in excise valuation must be supported by clear contemporaneous material showing its nature and basis. An undated circular and invoices that do not disclose the discount were insufficient, and no tangible evidence explained how the discount rate was fixed. On that record, the claim could not be accepted on assumptions, and the order allowing the deduction was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107366</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>