<?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 (8) TMI 98 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42291</link>
    <description>Rental charged for gas cylinders and notional interest on cylinder deposits were examined for inclusion in the assessable value of gases under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excises &amp; Salt Act, 1944. The text explains that assessable value is the normal wholesale price of the excisable goods, and that cylinder supply was only an ancillary arrangement, not part of manufacture or the price of the gases. Because consumers could take delivery in their own cylinders, the rental and deposit interest were separate receipts for an allied service, not different prices for the same goods. The Revenue&#039;s reliance on the first proviso to Section 4(1)(a) was therefore rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Aug 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2014 16:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80820" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (8) TMI 98 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42291</link>
      <description>Rental charged for gas cylinders and notional interest on cylinder deposits were examined for inclusion in the assessable value of gases under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excises &amp; Salt Act, 1944. The text explains that assessable value is the normal wholesale price of the excisable goods, and that cylinder supply was only an ancillary arrangement, not part of manufacture or the price of the gases. Because consumers could take delivery in their own cylinders, the rental and deposit interest were separate receipts for an allied service, not different prices for the same goods. The Revenue&#039;s reliance on the first proviso to Section 4(1)(a) was therefore rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Aug 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42291</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>