<?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>2005 (7) TMI 102 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47371</link>
    <description>Excise valuation under Section 4(1)(a) turns on whether an amount forms part of the normal price and whether any additional consideration has flowed back from the buyer. Price support incentives passed through credit notes were treated as supplier-driven market competition adjustments, with no evidence of depressed price, favoured buyers, or buyer flow-back; they were therefore outside assessable value. Rent levied for delayed return of empty crates and bottles was an ancillary charge to secure prompt return of containers and not part of the price of aerated water; it was also excluded from assessable value. The valuation adopted by the authorities was sustained because no includible additional consideration was proved.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Jun 2014 12:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85890" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (7) TMI 102 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47371</link>
      <description>Excise valuation under Section 4(1)(a) turns on whether an amount forms part of the normal price and whether any additional consideration has flowed back from the buyer. Price support incentives passed through credit notes were treated as supplier-driven market competition adjustments, with no evidence of depressed price, favoured buyers, or buyer flow-back; they were therefore outside assessable value. Rent levied for delayed return of empty crates and bottles was an ancillary charge to secure prompt return of containers and not part of the price of aerated water; it was also excluded from assessable value. The valuation adopted by the authorities was sustained because no includible additional consideration was proved.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47371</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>