https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40744 The court held that the distribution cost deduction claimed by aerated water manufacturers for excise duty assessment was not permissible under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The court emphasized the need for evidence to substantiate claimed deductions and ruled that only specific items like trade discount and excise duty payable could be deducted. Post-manufacturing expenses, excluding freight charges, were deemed not part of the assessable value for excise duty calculation. The court directed a remand to ascertain the exact freight charges for deduction, highlighting the importance of evidentiary support for claimed deductions. en-us Fri, 29 Feb 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 May 2010 12:10:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40744 The court held that the distribution cost deduction claimed by aerated water manufacturers for excise duty assessment was not permissible under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The court emphasized the need for evidence to substantiate claimed deductions and ruled that only specific items like trade discount and excise duty payable could be deducted. Post-manufacturing expenses, excluding freight charges, were deemed not part of the assessable value for excise duty calculation. The court directed a remand to ascertain the exact freight charges for deduction, highlighting the importance of evidentiary support for claimed deductions. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 29 Feb 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40744