<?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>1998 (1) TMI 73 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44800</link>
    <description>Notional interest on interest-free security deposits taken from some wholesale dealers was held not includible in the assessable value of cigarettes for excise duty. The factory-gate price was uniform for cash and credit buyers, and the deposits were used only to secure credit risk. There was no evidence that the deposits affected the sale price or that any reduced price, discount, or special consideration was granted to depositing dealers. On those facts, the price paid remained the sole consideration, Rule 5 valuation did not apply, and precedents involving large advances and differential pricing were treated as inapplicable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2025 17:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=83329" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (1) TMI 73 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44800</link>
      <description>Notional interest on interest-free security deposits taken from some wholesale dealers was held not includible in the assessable value of cigarettes for excise duty. The factory-gate price was uniform for cash and credit buyers, and the deposits were used only to secure credit risk. There was no evidence that the deposits affected the sale price or that any reduced price, discount, or special consideration was granted to depositing dealers. On those facts, the price paid remained the sole consideration, Rule 5 valuation did not apply, and precedents involving large advances and differential pricing were treated as inapplicable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44800</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>