<?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>2006 (5) TMI 227 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118053</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the manufacturer in a case concerning the assessable value determination for tractors sold to dealers for Central Excise duty. It was established that the dealers were not acting as commission agents but were engaged in outright purchases and resales, with no commission paid by the manufacturer. The Circular cited did not support the revenue&#039;s argument for including dealers&#039; margin in the assessable value, as the transactions were deemed principal-to-principal sales. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeal, emphasizing the nature of the transactions as outright sales and rejecting the inclusion of dealers&#039; margin for excise duty calculation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 11:38:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=155050" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (5) TMI 227 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118053</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the manufacturer in a case concerning the assessable value determination for tractors sold to dealers for Central Excise duty. It was established that the dealers were not acting as commission agents but were engaged in outright purchases and resales, with no commission paid by the manufacturer. The Circular cited did not support the revenue&#039;s argument for including dealers&#039; margin in the assessable value, as the transactions were deemed principal-to-principal sales. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeal, emphasizing the nature of the transactions as outright sales and rejecting the inclusion of dealers&#039; margin for excise duty calculation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118053</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>