<?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>Shaw Wallace Case: Valuation Discrepancy Ignored by Commissioner in Related Party Transactions Under Central Excise Laws.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=22474</link>
    <description>Valuation - normal price - Related person / party - wholesale purchaser - the single most relevant fact, namely, that Shaw Wallace paid for the same/similar goods to unrelated suppliers at a price lower than the price paid by Shaw Wallace to DIL, has not been adverted to at all by the Commissioner - SC</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2015 14:44:33 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2015 14:44:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=381351" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Shaw Wallace Case: Valuation Discrepancy Ignored by Commissioner in Related Party Transactions Under Central Excise Laws.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=22474</link>
      <description>Valuation - normal price - Related person / party - wholesale purchaser - the single most relevant fact, namely, that Shaw Wallace paid for the same/similar goods to unrelated suppliers at a price lower than the price paid by Shaw Wallace to DIL, has not been adverted to at all by the Commissioner - SC</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2015 14:44:33 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=22474</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>