https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336140 The High Court held that the Revenue's allegations of favored sale and abnormal valuation lacked sufficient evidence. Emphasizing the need for cogent proof, the Court found no mutual interest or undervaluation, applying normal valuation rules. The Tribunal, respecting the High Court's judgment, allowed the appeals due to consistent allegations and lack of factual variance. Duty demand was confined to normal valuation principles, directing verification under the Central Excise Act. Consequential relief was granted, aligning with legal provisions and upholding judicial discipline. en-us Wed, 28 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Dec 2016 11:14:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336140 The High Court held that the Revenue's allegations of favored sale and abnormal valuation lacked sufficient evidence. Emphasizing the need for cogent proof, the Court found no mutual interest or undervaluation, applying normal valuation rules. The Tribunal, respecting the High Court's judgment, allowed the appeals due to consistent allegations and lack of factual variance. Duty demand was confined to normal valuation principles, directing verification under the Central Excise Act. Consequential relief was granted, aligning with legal provisions and upholding judicial discipline. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 28 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336140