https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118729 The Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in favor of the respondents in the case involving the valuation of furniture for central excise duty. The dispute revolved around the alleged duty evasion due to different prices for wholesale and retail sales. The Commissioner found that the Revenue failed to prove that the manufacturer charged more than the indicated invoice value from wholesalers and rejected treating retail sales as wholesale for assessment. The judgment highlighted the need for proper assessment of goods' value for excise duty, emphasizing the distinction between wholesale and retail prices and requiring sufficient evidence from the Revenue to support duty evasion allegations. en-us Wed, 29 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:25:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118729 The Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in favor of the respondents in the case involving the valuation of furniture for central excise duty. The dispute revolved around the alleged duty evasion due to different prices for wholesale and retail sales. The Commissioner found that the Revenue failed to prove that the manufacturer charged more than the indicated invoice value from wholesalers and rejected treating retail sales as wholesale for assessment. The judgment highlighted the need for proper assessment of goods' value for excise duty, emphasizing the distinction between wholesale and retail prices and requiring sufficient evidence from the Revenue to support duty evasion allegations. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 29 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118729