<?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>1997 (5) TMI 274 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89726</link>
    <description>Mutuality of interest in each other&#039;s business is required to treat a buyer as a related person for excise valuation, and commercial features such as brand use, technical support, quality control assistance, or exclusive purchasing do not by themselves establish that relationship. On the facts, that related-person finding was rejected. However, the declared price could not be accepted as the final assessable value because the price-fixation basis was not fully disclosed and the buyer-related support arrangements remained relevant. The valuation question was therefore remanded for fresh adjudication under the applicable valuation framework after hearing the parties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:22:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126788" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (5) TMI 274 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89726</link>
      <description>Mutuality of interest in each other&#039;s business is required to treat a buyer as a related person for excise valuation, and commercial features such as brand use, technical support, quality control assistance, or exclusive purchasing do not by themselves establish that relationship. On the facts, that related-person finding was rejected. However, the declared price could not be accepted as the final assessable value because the price-fixation basis was not fully disclosed and the buyer-related support arrangements remained relevant. The valuation question was therefore remanded for fresh adjudication under the applicable valuation framework after hearing the parties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89726</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>