<?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>1998 (8) TMI 311 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90787</link>
    <description>Negotiated sales by independent manufacturers to a brand owner remained principal-to-principal transactions for excise valuation because the vendors had their own plant, machinery, funds, registrations, labour and separate commercial existence. Specifications, quality control, brand use and technical support did not by themselves establish dummy units, hired labour or effective manufacturing control, so the buyer&#039;s resale price could not be adopted for valuation. Once that valuation theory failed, the allegations of suppression and colourable evasion also collapsed, making the extended limitation period unsustainable. The demand under Section 11D and the penalties, being consequential to the same valuation case, likewise had no surviving basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:51:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127849" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (8) TMI 311 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90787</link>
      <description>Negotiated sales by independent manufacturers to a brand owner remained principal-to-principal transactions for excise valuation because the vendors had their own plant, machinery, funds, registrations, labour and separate commercial existence. Specifications, quality control, brand use and technical support did not by themselves establish dummy units, hired labour or effective manufacturing control, so the buyer&#039;s resale price could not be adopted for valuation. Once that valuation theory failed, the allegations of suppression and colourable evasion also collapsed, making the extended limitation period unsustainable. The demand under Section 11D and the penalties, being consequential to the same valuation case, likewise had no surviving basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90787</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>