<?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>2005 (2) TMI 549 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114875</link>
    <description>Delayed-delivery penalty could not be deducted from the sale price for excise valuation because the contractual price had already been adopted as the assessable value and duty had been paid on that basis. The later reduction in the amount received was attributable to the buyer&#039;s penalty claim, which was treated as separate from the price of the goods, and no excise provision permitted such a deduction. The refund claim was therefore rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 17:58:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151874" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 549 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114875</link>
      <description>Delayed-delivery penalty could not be deducted from the sale price for excise valuation because the contractual price had already been adopted as the assessable value and duty had been paid on that basis. The later reduction in the amount received was attributable to the buyer&#039;s penalty claim, which was treated as separate from the price of the goods, and no excise provision permitted such a deduction. The refund claim was therefore rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114875</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>