<?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 (12) TMI 328 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116878</link>
    <description>Normal factory-gate wholesale price was treated as the assessable value for ceramic glazed tiles under Section 4, because a small proportion of higher-priced sales to other buyers did not make the normal price unascertainable or require a different valuation method. Quantity discount was also deductible where the discount scheme was known at clearance, and the fact that some discount was granted after clearance did not defeat deduction when the scheme had been established and the discount was actually passed on. The valuation adopted by the appellate authority was therefore upheld, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2012 15:23:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153876" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (12) TMI 328 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116878</link>
      <description>Normal factory-gate wholesale price was treated as the assessable value for ceramic glazed tiles under Section 4, because a small proportion of higher-priced sales to other buyers did not make the normal price unascertainable or require a different valuation method. Quantity discount was also deductible where the discount scheme was known at clearance, and the fact that some discount was granted after clearance did not defeat deduction when the scheme had been established and the discount was actually passed on. The valuation adopted by the appellate authority was therefore upheld, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116878</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>