https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101226 The Tribunal found that the goods sold to a related entity and independent wholesale dealers were the same, rejecting the application of Proviso (iii) to Section 4(1)(a). The Tribunal emphasized that affixing a brand name did not change the goods' character, supporting the original assessments. Previous judgments on brand valuation were deemed irrelevant due to the majority of sales to independent buyers. The impugned order was set aside, granting relief to the appellants and emphasizing the insignificance of the relationship between manufacturing and marketing companies in determining the goods' assessable value for Central Excise duty. en-us Tue, 12 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:24:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101226 The Tribunal found that the goods sold to a related entity and independent wholesale dealers were the same, rejecting the application of Proviso (iii) to Section 4(1)(a). The Tribunal emphasized that affixing a brand name did not change the goods' character, supporting the original assessments. Previous judgments on brand valuation were deemed irrelevant due to the majority of sales to independent buyers. The impugned order was set aside, granting relief to the appellants and emphasizing the insignificance of the relationship between manufacturing and marketing companies in determining the goods' assessable value for Central Excise duty. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 12 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101226