https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107624 The commentary explains that, for excise valuation, two units of the same company could not be treated as related persons merely to enhance value under Section 4(1)(a). It further states that repacking done at Ballabhgarh after the goods had already been cleared from the factory could not be added to the assessable value, so the post-removal sale price was not a proper basis for duty demand. It also notes that the Mumbai authority lacked territorial jurisdiction to determine duty liability for activity carried out at Ballabhgarh outside its limits. The overall point is that post-clearance processing and jurisdictional limits must be respected in excise assessment. en-us Wed, 02 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Mar 2012 18:01:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107624 The commentary explains that, for excise valuation, two units of the same company could not be treated as related persons merely to enhance value under Section 4(1)(a). It further states that repacking done at Ballabhgarh after the goods had already been cleared from the factory could not be added to the assessable value, so the post-removal sale price was not a proper basis for duty demand. It also notes that the Mumbai authority lacked territorial jurisdiction to determine duty liability for activity carried out at Ballabhgarh outside its limits. The overall point is that post-clearance processing and jurisdictional limits must be respected in excise assessment. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 02 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107624