<?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 (5) TMI 439 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109853</link>
    <description>A payment described as an additional 1% discount was treated as includible in assessable value because it was linked to post-sale reporting and inventory obligations, and in substance operated as compensation for services rather than a normal trade discount. The text also notes that disclosure of the agreement did not prevent invocation of the extended limitation period where the true character of the payment was not fully disclosed for duty assessment. It further states that, once the demand was upheld, interest followed as a statutory consequence, while the penalty provision applied but the 100% penalty was reduced as excessive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2012 13:30:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146869" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (5) TMI 439 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109853</link>
      <description>A payment described as an additional 1% discount was treated as includible in assessable value because it was linked to post-sale reporting and inventory obligations, and in substance operated as compensation for services rather than a normal trade discount. The text also notes that disclosure of the agreement did not prevent invocation of the extended limitation period where the true character of the payment was not fully disclosed for duty assessment. It further states that, once the demand was upheld, interest followed as a statutory consequence, while the penalty provision applied but the 100% penalty was reduced as excessive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109853</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>