https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256521 Where molasses were sold to independent buyers under State-controlled conditions at a declared price, that price could not be rejected for excise valuation merely because comparable goods allegedly fetched a higher market price. The sale invoices described the goods as second grade, the reduced price had been intimated to the State Excise Commissioner, and there was no evidence of extra-commercial consideration or that the sales were not genuine. In the absence of proof that the declared price was not the sole consideration or that the goods were first quality, the department could not substitute a higher comparable price. The penalty founded on that valuation also could not survive. en-us Wed, 24 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Feb 2016 14:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256521 Where molasses were sold to independent buyers under State-controlled conditions at a declared price, that price could not be rejected for excise valuation merely because comparable goods allegedly fetched a higher market price. The sale invoices described the goods as second grade, the reduced price had been intimated to the State Excise Commissioner, and there was no evidence of extra-commercial consideration or that the sales were not genuine. In the absence of proof that the declared price was not the sole consideration or that the goods were first quality, the department could not substitute a higher comparable price. The penalty founded on that valuation also could not survive. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 24 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256521