<?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>2005 (7) TMI 266 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54907</link>
    <description>Trade discounts declared to the department before clearance and passed on through credit notes were treated as deductible from assessable value, and the fact that not every customer availed the discount did not defeat the deduction. Amounts received from an insurer for damage and related adjustments were held not to form part of the assessable value because they were not consideration for clearance of goods. As the discounts had been disclosed and departmental awareness was shown, suppression and intent to evade duty were not established; the extended period of limitation and penalties were therefore unsustainable, with the duty demand, interest, and penalties set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Oct 2010 16:41:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=93383" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (7) TMI 266 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54907</link>
      <description>Trade discounts declared to the department before clearance and passed on through credit notes were treated as deductible from assessable value, and the fact that not every customer availed the discount did not defeat the deduction. Amounts received from an insurer for damage and related adjustments were held not to form part of the assessable value because they were not consideration for clearance of goods. As the discounts had been disclosed and departmental awareness was shown, suppression and intent to evade duty were not established; the extended period of limitation and penalties were therefore unsustainable, with the duty demand, interest, and penalties set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54907</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>