<?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 (4) TMI 121 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50195</link>
    <description>A 2% discount allowed only to buyers who paid before delivery was treated as a cash discount for valuation purposes because it applied to cash-and-carry transactions rather than credit sales. Its deductibility did not depend on every buyer availing it, and its label as an advance payment discount did not change its legal character. The discount was therefore admissible and deductible from assessable value, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Aug 2010 12:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88675" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (4) TMI 121 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50195</link>
      <description>A 2% discount allowed only to buyers who paid before delivery was treated as a cash discount for valuation purposes because it applied to cash-and-carry transactions rather than credit sales. Its deductibility did not depend on every buyer availing it, and its label as an advance payment discount did not change its legal character. The discount was therefore admissible and deductible from assessable value, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50195</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>