https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84943 Under Notification No. 120/76-C.E., duty was required to be assessed on the true invoice price, and a mistaken higher figure entered in the invoice could be corrected where the manufacturer and buyer had actually agreed a lower price with retrospective effect. Seeking correction of the erroneous invoice did not amount to shifting from the invoice-price scheme to the price-list scheme. Clause (iv) of the proviso did not apply, because a contractual price fixed or varied in the sale agreement did not, by itself, create the kind of commercial or financial relationship that would disqualify the invoice price. The assessee was entitled to refund of the excess duty. en-us Fri, 09 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Aug 2011 16:53:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84943 Under Notification No. 120/76-C.E., duty was required to be assessed on the true invoice price, and a mistaken higher figure entered in the invoice could be corrected where the manufacturer and buyer had actually agreed a lower price with retrospective effect. Seeking correction of the erroneous invoice did not amount to shifting from the invoice-price scheme to the price-list scheme. Clause (iv) of the proviso did not apply, because a contractual price fixed or varied in the sale agreement did not, by itself, create the kind of commercial or financial relationship that would disqualify the invoice price. The assessee was entitled to refund of the excess duty. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 09 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84943