<?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>2002 (1) TMI 99 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51086</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Order-in-Original by the Commissioner of Central Excise, imposing duty liability on the appellant for a specified period. The appellant&#039;s challenges regarding deductions for loss of beverages and discounts on aerated water bottles were dismissed. The Tribunal ruled that the claimed deductions were not admissible, citing precedents and distinguishing between transportation costs and sales promotion expenses. Despite the appellant&#039;s arguments, the Tribunal concluded that the Department&#039;s decision on deductions was valid, ultimately denying the appellant&#039;s claims and upholding the duty liability imposed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:58:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89565" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (1) TMI 99 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51086</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Order-in-Original by the Commissioner of Central Excise, imposing duty liability on the appellant for a specified period. The appellant&#039;s challenges regarding deductions for loss of beverages and discounts on aerated water bottles were dismissed. The Tribunal ruled that the claimed deductions were not admissible, citing precedents and distinguishing between transportation costs and sales promotion expenses. Despite the appellant&#039;s arguments, the Tribunal concluded that the Department&#039;s decision on deductions was valid, ultimately denying the appellant&#039;s claims and upholding the duty liability imposed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51086</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>