https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109566 The court focused on interpreting proviso (iii) under section 4(1) of the Act concerning value determination for clearances to related persons. It analyzed conditions for proviso application, including mutuality of interest and pricing considerations. The judgment emphasized consistent pricing for related and unrelated buyers, overturning the Commissioner's decision. The court highlighted the fallacy in comparing prices between different wholesale buyers and referenced a Supreme Court observation on pricing consistency. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed due to the lack of price differentiation and fulfillment of proviso conditions, without addressing the limitation issue. en-us Wed, 02 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:51:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109566 The court focused on interpreting proviso (iii) under section 4(1) of the Act concerning value determination for clearances to related persons. It analyzed conditions for proviso application, including mutuality of interest and pricing considerations. The judgment emphasized consistent pricing for related and unrelated buyers, overturning the Commissioner's decision. The court highlighted the fallacy in comparing prices between different wholesale buyers and referenced a Supreme Court observation on pricing consistency. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed due to the lack of price differentiation and fulfillment of proviso conditions, without addressing the limitation issue. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 02 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109566