<?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>1988 (3) TMI 63 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42170</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling that the distributors were not &#039;related persons&#039; under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The assessable value for the levy of duty was determined based on the price charged at the factory gate, rejecting the inclusion of expenses for showrooms and advertisements. The Court declined to admit the appeals, affirming the Tribunal&#039;s order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2014 17:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80699" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (3) TMI 63 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42170</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling that the distributors were not &#039;related persons&#039; under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The assessable value for the levy of duty was determined based on the price charged at the factory gate, rejecting the inclusion of expenses for showrooms and advertisements. The Court declined to admit the appeals, affirming the Tribunal&#039;s order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42170</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>