<?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 (10) TMI 650 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333630</link>
    <description>A pre-declared discount on direct sales to dealers was deductible from assessable value as a genuine trade discount because the sale terms were concluded in the agreement and reflected in invoices and credit notes. Amounts paid to dealer-agents for arranging sales to third parties were not deductible, as they constituted commission or incentive rather than a discount on sale of goods. The extended period of demand was not available where declarations and returns were regularly filed and the relevant sales pattern and agreements were already disclosed to the Department; consequential penalties also failed on that basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Feb 2018 11:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=445259" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 650 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333630</link>
      <description>A pre-declared discount on direct sales to dealers was deductible from assessable value as a genuine trade discount because the sale terms were concluded in the agreement and reflected in invoices and credit notes. Amounts paid to dealer-agents for arranging sales to third parties were not deductible, as they constituted commission or incentive rather than a discount on sale of goods. The extended period of demand was not available where declarations and returns were regularly filed and the relevant sales pattern and agreements were already disclosed to the Department; consequential penalties also failed on that basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333630</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>