<?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 (6) TMI 331 - CESTAT,  MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119212</link>
    <description>The tribunal held that the amounts realized by the intermediary were not eligible for deduction as a trade discount under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The lack of disclosure to the actual customer at the time of goods clearance rendered the deduction claim invalid, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2012 17:24:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=156209" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (6) TMI 331 - CESTAT,  MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119212</link>
      <description>The tribunal held that the amounts realized by the intermediary were not eligible for deduction as a trade discount under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The lack of disclosure to the actual customer at the time of goods clearance rendered the deduction claim invalid, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119212</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>