<?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>2013 (8) TMI 344 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236049</link>
    <description>Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 applies only in the special situation where sales are routed through or made to a related person so as to attract the deeming valuation fiction. Where contemporaneous sales to independent buyers are available and provide a reliable benchmark, that special method cannot be applied mechanically merely because some clearances are to a related concern. The discussion distinguishes precedents under the earlier valuation regime and also distinguishes Fiat India on the ground that there was no finding that the related-party price was below cost of production. On that basis, the assessable value could not be fixed at 115% of cost of production, and the valuation-based demand, interest and penalties were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2016 15:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=198459" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (8) TMI 344 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236049</link>
      <description>Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 applies only in the special situation where sales are routed through or made to a related person so as to attract the deeming valuation fiction. Where contemporaneous sales to independent buyers are available and provide a reliable benchmark, that special method cannot be applied mechanically merely because some clearances are to a related concern. The discussion distinguishes precedents under the earlier valuation regime and also distinguishes Fiat India on the ground that there was no finding that the related-party price was below cost of production. On that basis, the assessable value could not be fixed at 115% of cost of production, and the valuation-based demand, interest and penalties were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236049</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>