<?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>1989 (9) TMI 107 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42591</link>
    <description>Valuation under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 allows only deductions that are expressly and factually shown to be outside the assessable wholesale price. Interest on deposits from wholesale distributors was not deductible because the deposits were treated as working funds with no direct link to valuation. Carriage and freight charges were also disallowed because the assessee failed to prove that they formed part of the price or related to delivery beyond the place of removal. Special secondary packing charges, including cardboard and wooden packing, were rejected because the packing was found to be normal and essential for sale, not special buyer-specific packing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Jun 2010 11:18:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81120" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (9) TMI 107 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42591</link>
      <description>Valuation under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 allows only deductions that are expressly and factually shown to be outside the assessable wholesale price. Interest on deposits from wholesale distributors was not deductible because the deposits were treated as working funds with no direct link to valuation. Carriage and freight charges were also disallowed because the assessee failed to prove that they formed part of the price or related to delivery beyond the place of removal. Special secondary packing charges, including cardboard and wooden packing, were rejected because the packing was found to be normal and essential for sale, not special buyer-specific packing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42591</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>