https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328832 Clearances by an assessee qualifying as an interconnected undertaking under Section 4(3)(b)(i) were held not to attract Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules. Valuation had instead to proceed under Rule 10(b) read with Section 4(1), applying the normal transaction value method explained in Ujagar Prints. The Tribunal noted that the proviso to Rule 9 could not be invoked separately once Rule 9 itself was inapplicable, and the Revenue could not raise a new valuation theory at the appellate stage. The proposed 115% cost-loading approach was therefore rejected, and consequential relief followed. en-us Fri, 20 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328832 Clearances by an assessee qualifying as an interconnected undertaking under Section 4(3)(b)(i) were held not to attract Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules. Valuation had instead to proceed under Rule 10(b) read with Section 4(1), applying the normal transaction value method explained in Ujagar Prints. The Tribunal noted that the proviso to Rule 9 could not be invoked separately once Rule 9 itself was inapplicable, and the Revenue could not raise a new valuation theory at the appellate stage. The proposed 115% cost-loading approach was therefore rejected, and consequential relief followed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 20 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328832