<?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>2007 (6) TMI 208 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31573</link>
    <description>Wear and tear charges linked to separate rental or maintenance-type activity were excluded from excise assessable value, as such amounts were not part of the sale of goods merely because they arose in the commercial relationship. Freight and distributor commission were included in transaction value and assessable value because the evidence showed the seller controlled pricing beyond the factory gate, and the claimed sale was not established as a true principal-to-principal factory-gate transaction. The documentation and oral evidence supporting inclusion were preferred over affidavits and invoices that failed to displace the department&#039;s case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=70220" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (6) TMI 208 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31573</link>
      <description>Wear and tear charges linked to separate rental or maintenance-type activity were excluded from excise assessable value, as such amounts were not part of the sale of goods merely because they arose in the commercial relationship. Freight and distributor commission were included in transaction value and assessable value because the evidence showed the seller controlled pricing beyond the factory gate, and the claimed sale was not established as a true principal-to-principal factory-gate transaction. The documentation and oral evidence supporting inclusion were preferred over affidavits and invoices that failed to displace the department&#039;s case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31573</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>