<?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>2000 (11) TMI 793 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98408</link>
    <description>Exclusive sale of the manufacturer&#039;s entire production to one buyer, coupled with interest-free advances, payment of manufacturing and office expenses, and effective control over production and marketing, established mutuality of interest and financial flow back. Common management features such as a shared director and office premises were noted but were not the decisive basis. The transactions were therefore not treated as true principal-to-principal dealings, and the lower price charged to the buyer was not accepted as a normal commercial arrangement. The buyer was held to be a related person for central excise valuation, and the Department&#039;s valuation approach was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:52:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135465" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (11) TMI 793 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98408</link>
      <description>Exclusive sale of the manufacturer&#039;s entire production to one buyer, coupled with interest-free advances, payment of manufacturing and office expenses, and effective control over production and marketing, established mutuality of interest and financial flow back. Common management features such as a shared director and office premises were noted but were not the decisive basis. The transactions were therefore not treated as true principal-to-principal dealings, and the lower price charged to the buyer was not accepted as a normal commercial arrangement. The buyer was held to be a related person for central excise valuation, and the Department&#039;s valuation approach was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98408</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>