<?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 221 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51359</link>
    <description>Amounts recovered from wholesale dealers as freight, transportation, and advertisement charges were treated as part of the sale price where the alleged transport and trading concerns were found to be mere covers and the collections flowed back to the manufacturer. The assessable value therefore included those recoveries, subject to deduction of actual transportation expenses, if any, attributable to the transport arrangement. Limitation did not bar the demand because the assessments were provisional and were being finalized. Duty was required to be recomputed on a cum-duty basis where the entire realization was treated as the sale price. Penalties were modified: retrospective application of Section 11AC was disallowed, some penalties were reduced, one was set aside, and another was sustained with reduction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Sep 2010 13:02:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89837" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (1) TMI 221 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51359</link>
      <description>Amounts recovered from wholesale dealers as freight, transportation, and advertisement charges were treated as part of the sale price where the alleged transport and trading concerns were found to be mere covers and the collections flowed back to the manufacturer. The assessable value therefore included those recoveries, subject to deduction of actual transportation expenses, if any, attributable to the transport arrangement. Limitation did not bar the demand because the assessments were provisional and were being finalized. Duty was required to be recomputed on a cum-duty basis where the entire realization was treated as the sale price. Penalties were modified: retrospective application of Section 11AC was disallowed, some penalties were reduced, one was set aside, and another was sustained with reduction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51359</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>