https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107782 Assessable value of pattern tooling cleared to another concern had to be determined on the transaction price under Section 4(1)(a) because the record did not establish that the buyer was a related person in the statutory sense or that the price was not the sole consideration. In the absence of evidence of non-arm's-length dealing, the special valuation method under Rule 6(b)(ii) could not be invoked. The proper basis for valuation remained the price actually received from the buyer, and the demand founded on the sister-concern allegation failed. en-us Mon, 18 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:03:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107782 Assessable value of pattern tooling cleared to another concern had to be determined on the transaction price under Section 4(1)(a) because the record did not establish that the buyer was a related person in the statutory sense or that the price was not the sole consideration. In the absence of evidence of non-arm's-length dealing, the special valuation method under Rule 6(b)(ii) could not be invoked. The proper basis for valuation remained the price actually received from the buyer, and the demand founded on the sister-concern allegation failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 18 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107782