https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247457 Excise valuation for a period before the 1996 amendment to Section 4 had to be tested under the unamended scheme, which valued goods by the normal wholesale price at the time and place of removal and, where necessary, by the nearest ascertainable equivalent. The High Court erred in quashing the show-cause notices at the threshold by relying on the later amendment, because the dispute depended on factual inquiry into normal price, transportation cost, place of removal and allowable deductions. The notices therefore could not be set aside at that stage, and the assessee was required to place its case before the competent authority. en-us Fri, 09 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Sep 2014 16:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247457 Excise valuation for a period before the 1996 amendment to Section 4 had to be tested under the unamended scheme, which valued goods by the normal wholesale price at the time and place of removal and, where necessary, by the nearest ascertainable equivalent. The High Court erred in quashing the show-cause notices at the threshold by relying on the later amendment, because the dispute depended on factual inquiry into normal price, transportation cost, place of removal and allowable deductions. The notices therefore could not be set aside at that stage, and the assessee was required to place its case before the competent authority. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 09 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247457