https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206622 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI allowed the appeal challenging a differential duty demand of Rs.2,16,029/- due to the price difference for clearing balance stock after the brand name "Banish" was assigned to another party. The Tribunal found the appellant's decision to sell the remaining stock at a lower price was a valid business choice and accepted that the price adopted was normal. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed on 5.7.2011. This case clarifies the concept of normal price in the context of differential duty demands post-brand name assignment. en-us Tue, 05 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 May 2013 12:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206622 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI allowed the appeal challenging a differential duty demand of Rs.2,16,029/- due to the price difference for clearing balance stock after the brand name "Banish" was assigned to another party. The Tribunal found the appellant's decision to sell the remaining stock at a lower price was a valid business choice and accepted that the price adopted was normal. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed on 5.7.2011. This case clarifies the concept of normal price in the context of differential duty demands post-brand name assignment. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 05 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206622