<?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 (2) TMI 1090 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176725</link>
    <description>Mere interconnection between an assessee and a buyer does not, by itself, make them related persons for central excise valuation. Transaction value can be rejected and Rule 10 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 applied only when the rule&#039;s statutory conditions are satisfied, including that sales are to or through the interconnected undertaking and the additional relationship requirements are met. The valuation order was found defective because it did not examine the assessee&#039;s objection that these conditions were absent and did not address the challenge to the assessable value computation. The order was set aside and the matter remanded for de novo valuation decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2016 14:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=410877" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (2) TMI 1090 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176725</link>
      <description>Mere interconnection between an assessee and a buyer does not, by itself, make them related persons for central excise valuation. Transaction value can be rejected and Rule 10 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 applied only when the rule&#039;s statutory conditions are satisfied, including that sales are to or through the interconnected undertaking and the additional relationship requirements are met. The valuation order was found defective because it did not examine the assessee&#039;s objection that these conditions were absent and did not address the challenge to the assessable value computation. The order was set aside and the matter remanded for de novo valuation decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176725</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>