<?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>2018 (4) TMI 1314 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359203</link>
    <description>Sales to distributors remained assessable on a principal-to-principal basis under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act because the record did not establish mutuality of interest, flow back of funds, or the kind of financial nexus needed to treat the distributors as related persons. The manufacturer&#039;s declared value could therefore not be displaced on related-person pricing. The distributors&#039; expenditure on advertisement, marketing, and selling organisation was also not added to assessable value, as there was no corroborative evidence or enforceable arrangement showing that those costs were incurred on behalf of the manufacturer. The valuation adopted by the manufacturer was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2018 11:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=518062" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 1314 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359203</link>
      <description>Sales to distributors remained assessable on a principal-to-principal basis under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act because the record did not establish mutuality of interest, flow back of funds, or the kind of financial nexus needed to treat the distributors as related persons. The manufacturer&#039;s declared value could therefore not be displaced on related-person pricing. The distributors&#039; expenditure on advertisement, marketing, and selling organisation was also not added to assessable value, as there was no corroborative evidence or enforceable arrangement showing that those costs were incurred on behalf of the manufacturer. The valuation adopted by the manufacturer was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359203</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>