TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the benefit of Notification No. 120/75-C.E. dated 30th April, 1975 could be denied on the ground that the buyer was a holding company and, therefore, a related person whose relationship with the manufacturer allegedly influenced the invoice price.
Analysis: The Department proceeded only on the assumption that the existence of a holding-company relationship automatically meant that the invoice price was influenced. No material was produced to show that any commercial, financial or other relationship actually affected the price. The record also showed that sales were made to other parties at the same price, and this was not rebutted. The burden to prove that the condition of the notification was not satisfied lay on the Department, and that burden was not discharged.
Conclusion: The notification benefit could not be denied merely because the buyer was a related person; in the absence of proof that the invoice price was influenced, the finding was against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The exemption notification remained available, and the Tribunal's order was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: Denial of an exemption notification on the ground of relationship between buyer and manufacturer requires proof that the relationship actually influenced the invoice price; a related-person status by itself is insufficient.
TaxTMI 
