<?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>2003 (4) TMI 444 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108957</link>
    <description>Related-person valuation under central excise turns on mutuality of interest and not on mere shareholding, inter-company dealings, or job-work arrangements; where deeper commercial and financial interdependence, control over production, pricing, and marketing are shown, the buyer&#039;s resale price may be adopted as the assessable value. The majority also treated the failure to make a full and explicit disclosure of the relationship and pricing arrangement in price lists as wilful suppression, since the material facts emerged only through investigation, so the extended limitation period was invocable. The assessee&#039;s challenge failed on both valuation and limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2012 11:23:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145974" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (4) TMI 444 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108957</link>
      <description>Related-person valuation under central excise turns on mutuality of interest and not on mere shareholding, inter-company dealings, or job-work arrangements; where deeper commercial and financial interdependence, control over production, pricing, and marketing are shown, the buyer&#039;s resale price may be adopted as the assessable value. The majority also treated the failure to make a full and explicit disclosure of the relationship and pricing arrangement in price lists as wilful suppression, since the material facts emerged only through investigation, so the extended limitation period was invocable. The assessee&#039;s challenge failed on both valuation and limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108957</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>