https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333251 Transaction value for clearances to interconnected undertakings could not be rejected merely on that ground. Valuation under section 4(1)(a) remained applicable because the statutory conditions for invoking related-person valuation rules were not shown to exist, and rule 9 could not be applied without such material. The attempt to shift to a cost-based method had no valid basis where the department had earlier accepted transaction value on similar facts. The valuation dispute was decided in favour of the assessee. en-us Tue, 30 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Oct 2016 20:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333251 Transaction value for clearances to interconnected undertakings could not be rejected merely on that ground. Valuation under section 4(1)(a) remained applicable because the statutory conditions for invoking related-person valuation rules were not shown to exist, and rule 9 could not be applied without such material. The attempt to shift to a cost-based method had no valid basis where the department had earlier accepted transaction value on similar facts. The valuation dispute was decided in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 30 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333251