<?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>1995 (10) TMI 222 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164335</link>
    <description>For valuation under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, advertisement expenses were not includible in the assessable value of soft drink concentrates because the promotional spend related to the bottled beverage marketed by bottlers, not to the concentrates cleared by the assessee, and no separate recovery from bottlers was shown. Royalty under a composite trade-mark and supply arrangement was includible where it arose from the linked obligation to buy concentrates and licence the mark, as it was an extra accrual over the sale price of the concentrates; however, royalty relating to soda products manufactured without any corresponding sale of concentrates was excluded. The appeal was thus partly allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2014 15:27:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=353572" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (10) TMI 222 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164335</link>
      <description>For valuation under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, advertisement expenses were not includible in the assessable value of soft drink concentrates because the promotional spend related to the bottled beverage marketed by bottlers, not to the concentrates cleared by the assessee, and no separate recovery from bottlers was shown. Royalty under a composite trade-mark and supply arrangement was includible where it arose from the linked obligation to buy concentrates and licence the mark, as it was an extra accrual over the sale price of the concentrates; however, royalty relating to soda products manufactured without any corresponding sale of concentrates was excluded. The appeal was thus partly allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164335</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>