<?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>1986 (4) TMI 59 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41764</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court clarified the interpretation of the definition of &#039;related person&#039; in the Central Excises &amp;amp; Salt Act, 1944, in a case involving M/s. Alok Textiles. The Court ruled that M/s. Alok Textiles could not be classified as a &#039;related person&#039; for excise duty valuation purposes. It held that the wholesale cash price at which goods were sold to various wholesale dealers, including M/s. Alok Textiles, should be considered for excise duty valuation. The Court also determined that post-manufacturing expenses and profits should not be included in the valuation of excisable goods. The appeal was partly allowed, directing a fresh assessment based on the wholesale cash price within six weeks.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2014 11:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80293" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (4) TMI 59 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41764</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court clarified the interpretation of the definition of &#039;related person&#039; in the Central Excises &amp;amp; Salt Act, 1944, in a case involving M/s. Alok Textiles. The Court ruled that M/s. Alok Textiles could not be classified as a &#039;related person&#039; for excise duty valuation purposes. It held that the wholesale cash price at which goods were sold to various wholesale dealers, including M/s. Alok Textiles, should be considered for excise duty valuation. The Court also determined that post-manufacturing expenses and profits should not be included in the valuation of excisable goods. The appeal was partly allowed, directing a fresh assessment based on the wholesale cash price within six weeks.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41764</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>