<?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>2000 (1) TMI 92 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49975</link>
    <description>Independent buyers/distributors&#039; advertisement and sales promotion expenses were not includible in assessable value because the sales were at arm&#039;s length and no extra consideration flowed back to the manufacturer. Interest on advances or security deposits was also excluded, as the department failed to show a nexus between the deposits and any depressed sale price; the deposits were linked to returnable containers, bottles and ice boxes. A limited factual issue remained whether certain receipts were advances against sales or merely security deposits, and that point was remanded for fresh verification. The Revenue succeeded on no substantive valuation issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 18:07:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88455" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (1) TMI 92 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49975</link>
      <description>Independent buyers/distributors&#039; advertisement and sales promotion expenses were not includible in assessable value because the sales were at arm&#039;s length and no extra consideration flowed back to the manufacturer. Interest on advances or security deposits was also excluded, as the department failed to show a nexus between the deposits and any depressed sale price; the deposits were linked to returnable containers, bottles and ice boxes. A limited factual issue remained whether certain receipts were advances against sales or merely security deposits, and that point was remanded for fresh verification. The Revenue succeeded on no substantive valuation issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49975</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>