<?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 (7) TMI 346 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107633</link>
    <description>Where goods were sold both at the factory gate and from depots, the ex-factory sale price was the normal wholesale price and formed the assessable value under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On that basis, duty had already been correctly discharged, so the attempt to enhance depot-clearance valuation by adding bundling and strapping charges lacked legal foundation. The demand and penalty were therefore unsustainable and were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2012 18:35:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144650" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (7) TMI 346 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107633</link>
      <description>Where goods were sold both at the factory gate and from depots, the ex-factory sale price was the normal wholesale price and formed the assessable value under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On that basis, duty had already been correctly discharged, so the attempt to enhance depot-clearance valuation by adding bundling and strapping charges lacked legal foundation. The demand and penalty were therefore unsustainable and were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107633</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>