<?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>2017 (1) TMI 1072 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337992</link>
    <description>Cash discount may be deducted from assessable value if the discount policy was communicated before clearance, and the record required fresh verification of contemporaneous circulars and customer communications, so the issue was remanded. Special packing charges were not deductible because the purchase orders were found not genuine and the evidence did not establish clearance in special packing at buyers&#039; instance, so the disallowance was upheld. Freight deduction depended on proper evidentiary scrutiny of actual expenditure, and the claim was therefore remanded for reconsideration. Penalty-related questions were left open to be decided afresh after remand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2017 16:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=456092" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 1072 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337992</link>
      <description>Cash discount may be deducted from assessable value if the discount policy was communicated before clearance, and the record required fresh verification of contemporaneous circulars and customer communications, so the issue was remanded. Special packing charges were not deductible because the purchase orders were found not genuine and the evidence did not establish clearance in special packing at buyers&#039; instance, so the disallowance was upheld. Freight deduction depended on proper evidentiary scrutiny of actual expenditure, and the claim was therefore remanded for reconsideration. Penalty-related questions were left open to be decided afresh after remand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337992</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>