https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249280 Where transaction value at the factory gate is available, it cannot be rejected merely on a cost-construction formula or presumed value addition. The Tribunal held that the Department's arithmetical comparison was unsound because it relied on quantities that excluded job-work clearances, and there was no inquiry with buyers, no market inquiry, and no evidence of extra consideration or prevailing market price showing understatement. In the absence of material justifying rejection of the declared price, Rule 8 could not be invoked. The redetermined assessable value, duty demand, interest, and penalty were therefore unsustainable. en-us Mon, 24 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Jan 2015 12:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249280 Where transaction value at the factory gate is available, it cannot be rejected merely on a cost-construction formula or presumed value addition. The Tribunal held that the Department's arithmetical comparison was unsound because it relied on quantities that excluded job-work clearances, and there was no inquiry with buyers, no market inquiry, and no evidence of extra consideration or prevailing market price showing understatement. In the absence of material justifying rejection of the declared price, Rule 8 could not be invoked. The redetermined assessable value, duty demand, interest, and penalty were therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 24 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249280