<?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>2015 (9) TMI 1028 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264360</link>
    <description>Royalty paid by an assessee to a brand owner could not be added to the sale price as additional consideration under Rule 5 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975. The SC held that only consideration flowing directly or indirectly from the buyer to the assessee can be included in assessable value; a payment made by the assessee to the buyer for use of the buyer&#039;s brand name does not meet that requirement. On that basis, the show cause notice and demand founded on inclusion of the royalty were unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 Dec 2015 12:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=398379" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (9) TMI 1028 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264360</link>
      <description>Royalty paid by an assessee to a brand owner could not be added to the sale price as additional consideration under Rule 5 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975. The SC held that only consideration flowing directly or indirectly from the buyer to the assessee can be included in assessable value; a payment made by the assessee to the buyer for use of the buyer&#039;s brand name does not meet that requirement. On that basis, the show cause notice and demand founded on inclusion of the royalty were unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264360</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>