https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348014 For clearances to a related person for captive consumption, the valuation issue turned on whether transaction value under section 4(1)(a) applied or whether Rule 9 under section 4(1)(b) required valuation at 115% of cost of production. The dispute arose from stock transfers to a sister concern, but the Revenue's challenge to the valuation method was no longer sustainable because the Tribunal decision relied on by the Commissioner (Appeals) had not been carried in appeal to the Supreme Court. The valuation adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) therefore remained undisturbed. en-us Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Sep 2017 09:26:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348014 For clearances to a related person for captive consumption, the valuation issue turned on whether transaction value under section 4(1)(a) applied or whether Rule 9 under section 4(1)(b) required valuation at 115% of cost of production. The dispute arose from stock transfers to a sister concern, but the Revenue's challenge to the valuation method was no longer sustainable because the Tribunal decision relied on by the Commissioner (Appeals) had not been carried in appeal to the Supreme Court. The valuation adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) therefore remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348014