<?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>2003 (12) TMI 113 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52397</link>
    <description>Air-conditioners cleared under negotiated DGS&amp;D supply arrangements remained assessable under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 because the goods were notified for MRP-based valuation and were required to bear an MRP under the packaged commodities regime. The DGS&amp;D arrangement governed only price and contractual terms; the actual supplies were made directly to the concerned departments for individual units, so the transaction was not a bulk sale to DGS&amp;D. On those facts, the contrary decision cited was inapplicable, as it involved a different transactional structure and bulk clearance. Section 4A therefore applied, and valuation under Section 4 was not justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Oct 2010 15:47:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90874" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (12) TMI 113 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52397</link>
      <description>Air-conditioners cleared under negotiated DGS&amp;D supply arrangements remained assessable under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 because the goods were notified for MRP-based valuation and were required to bear an MRP under the packaged commodities regime. The DGS&amp;D arrangement governed only price and contractual terms; the actual supplies were made directly to the concerned departments for individual units, so the transaction was not a bulk sale to DGS&amp;D. On those facts, the contrary decision cited was inapplicable, as it involved a different transactional structure and bulk clearance. Section 4A therefore applied, and valuation under Section 4 was not justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52397</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>