<?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>2008 (7) TMI 647 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123830</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner&#039;s decision that excise duty should be based on the normal price of goods at the time of removal, unaffected by post-sale bonuses or penalties. The Revenue&#039;s argument that bonuses constituted additional consideration was rejected. Citing precedent cases, the Tribunal emphasized that bonuses for better performance should not be included in the assessable value of goods. The consistent position of the Tribunal on such issues rendered the Revenue&#039;s appeal meritless. The impugned order vacating the demand and imposing a penalty was upheld, and the Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Sep 2017 11:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160790" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 647 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123830</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner&#039;s decision that excise duty should be based on the normal price of goods at the time of removal, unaffected by post-sale bonuses or penalties. The Revenue&#039;s argument that bonuses constituted additional consideration was rejected. Citing precedent cases, the Tribunal emphasized that bonuses for better performance should not be included in the assessable value of goods. The consistent position of the Tribunal on such issues rendered the Revenue&#039;s appeal meritless. The impugned order vacating the demand and imposing a penalty was upheld, and the Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123830</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>