<?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>1984 (9) TMI 52 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYD.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41516</link>
    <description>Dealer commission was treated as part of the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, because the payment was linked to contractual obligations to maintain sales and service infrastructure and was remuneration for business facilities rather than a normal trade discount. The dealers were also regarded as related persons for valuation purposes due to the mutual commercial interest between the parties. On limitation, the notice based on wilful suppression of the true nature of the dealer arrangements attracted the extended period under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, so the demand was not time-barred. The excise demand was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Jun 2010 10:19:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80047" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (9) TMI 52 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYD.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41516</link>
      <description>Dealer commission was treated as part of the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, because the payment was linked to contractual obligations to maintain sales and service infrastructure and was remuneration for business facilities rather than a normal trade discount. The dealers were also regarded as related persons for valuation purposes due to the mutual commercial interest between the parties. On limitation, the notice based on wilful suppression of the true nature of the dealer arrangements attracted the extended period under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, so the demand was not time-barred. The excise demand was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41516</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>