<?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>1998 (3) TMI 619 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107839</link>
    <description>Where no actual wholesale sale price existed for outside-State clearances, excise valuation could be based on the available wholesale price benchmark and a reasonable notional deduction to convert retail price into wholesale price. The Uttar Pradesh wholesale price was accepted as the reference for sales outside the State because sales within Uttar Pradesh were to wholesale dealers, while outside-State sales were to individual customers. For the earlier period, a deduction of Rs. 325 per vehicle was treated as the appropriate conversion allowance, and the smaller deduction claimed on the basis of payments to authorised representatives was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2012 12:15:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144856" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (3) TMI 619 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107839</link>
      <description>Where no actual wholesale sale price existed for outside-State clearances, excise valuation could be based on the available wholesale price benchmark and a reasonable notional deduction to convert retail price into wholesale price. The Uttar Pradesh wholesale price was accepted as the reference for sales outside the State because sales within Uttar Pradesh were to wholesale dealers, while outside-State sales were to individual customers. For the earlier period, a deduction of Rs. 325 per vehicle was treated as the appropriate conversion allowance, and the smaller deduction claimed on the basis of payments to authorised representatives was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107839</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>