<?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>2016 (9) TMI 782 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332521</link>
    <description>The Tribunal determined that the price charged by MGL to OMCs for CNG constituted the transaction value for duty purposes under Section 4(1)(a) of the CEA. Discounts provided to OMCs were classified as trade discounts, not commissions. The transactions between MGL and OMCs were on a principal-to-principal basis, and not on an agency basis. The Tribunal set aside the demands and penalties, ultimately allowing the appeals with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Aug 2017 12:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=441629" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 782 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332521</link>
      <description>The Tribunal determined that the price charged by MGL to OMCs for CNG constituted the transaction value for duty purposes under Section 4(1)(a) of the CEA. Discounts provided to OMCs were classified as trade discounts, not commissions. The transactions between MGL and OMCs were on a principal-to-principal basis, and not on an agency basis. The Tribunal set aside the demands and penalties, ultimately allowing the appeals with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332521</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>