<?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>2015 (1) TMI 451 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255252</link>
    <description>A prima facie case was made out for complete waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in an excise valuation dispute. The Tribunal found that the material did not, at this stage, support the Commissioner&#039;s conclusions that the parties were related persons, that the goods could not be valued at normal price, or that valuation had to be determined under Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules, 2000. Mere supervision of manufacture to technical specifications was held insufficient to establish related-person status, and the record did not satisfactorily prove free supply of machinery or other foundational facts relied upon for the demand. Relief was therefore granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2015 14:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=373742" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (1) TMI 451 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255252</link>
      <description>A prima facie case was made out for complete waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in an excise valuation dispute. The Tribunal found that the material did not, at this stage, support the Commissioner&#039;s conclusions that the parties were related persons, that the goods could not be valued at normal price, or that valuation had to be determined under Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules, 2000. Mere supervision of manufacture to technical specifications was held insufficient to establish related-person status, and the record did not satisfactorily prove free supply of machinery or other foundational facts relied upon for the demand. Relief was therefore granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255252</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>