<?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 (12) TMI 324 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120576</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, finding that the interest paid by the buyer to their bankers under the &#039;Bill Marketing Scheme&#039; should not be included in the assessable value of goods supplied. The discounted price received by the appellants was deemed as the transaction value, in line with circulars by the Board. The Tribunal distinguished the case from previous decisions, emphasizing the focus on prompt payment by the buyer rather than the buyer&#039;s financial arrangement. The appellants were granted a prima facie case for waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery, supported by the strength of their arguments.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Jul 2012 13:18:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=157571" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (12) TMI 324 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120576</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, finding that the interest paid by the buyer to their bankers under the &#039;Bill Marketing Scheme&#039; should not be included in the assessable value of goods supplied. The discounted price received by the appellants was deemed as the transaction value, in line with circulars by the Board. The Tribunal distinguished the case from previous decisions, emphasizing the focus on prompt payment by the buyer rather than the buyer&#039;s financial arrangement. The appellants were granted a prima facie case for waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery, supported by the strength of their arguments.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120576</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>