<?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>1992 (2) TMI 94 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43272</link>
    <description>Credit charges recovered from customers on deferred payments were examined for inclusion in the assessable value of goods under central excise law. The article notes that the assessee treated the charges as compensation for delayed payment, not as part of the factory-gate price, and that the materials on record were insufficient to support a finding that the normal price had been artificially reduced through imaginative credit charges. It also indicates that a closer scrutiny of the papers and documents was necessary to determine whether the amount was interest on deferred payment or an additional element of value. The inclusion issue was not finally upheld and was sent back for fresh reconsideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Feb 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:47:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81801" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (2) TMI 94 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43272</link>
      <description>Credit charges recovered from customers on deferred payments were examined for inclusion in the assessable value of goods under central excise law. The article notes that the assessee treated the charges as compensation for delayed payment, not as part of the factory-gate price, and that the materials on record were insufficient to support a finding that the normal price had been artificially reduced through imaginative credit charges. It also indicates that a closer scrutiny of the papers and documents was necessary to determine whether the amount was interest on deferred payment or an additional element of value. The inclusion issue was not finally upheld and was sent back for fresh reconsideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Feb 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43272</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>