https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107186 Valuation of goods cleared to a related person was analysed under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 read with Rules 4 and 7 and Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The price realised from independent buyers could serve as a benchmark only if it reflected a normal transaction value, and further deductions based on different commercial levels were rejected for lack of evidence. Penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was found unsustainable because the record did not show clandestine removal, fraud, collusion, wilful evasion, or suppression, and the transactions were within the department's knowledge. en-us Fri, 10 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:18:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107186 Valuation of goods cleared to a related person was analysed under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 read with Rules 4 and 7 and Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The price realised from independent buyers could serve as a benchmark only if it reflected a normal transaction value, and further deductions based on different commercial levels were rejected for lack of evidence. Penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was found unsustainable because the record did not show clandestine removal, fraud, collusion, wilful evasion, or suppression, and the transactions were within the department's knowledge. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 10 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107186