<?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>2018 (8) TMI 530 - CESTAT  ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365058</link>
    <description>Independent companies dealing on principal-to-principal terms are not related persons for Central Excise valuation merely because buyers have contractual rejection rights or own moulds supplied free of cost. Separate manufacturing facilities, procurement, records and excise registration supported independence, while amortisation of mould cost in the declared value and absence of managerial, administrative or financial control, extra consideration or mutuality of interest negated related-party status. Rule 9 read with Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules could not support revaluation; the duty demand, interest and penalties were unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Aug 2018 08:05:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=530221" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (8) TMI 530 - CESTAT  ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365058</link>
      <description>Independent companies dealing on principal-to-principal terms are not related persons for Central Excise valuation merely because buyers have contractual rejection rights or own moulds supplied free of cost. Separate manufacturing facilities, procurement, records and excise registration supported independence, while amortisation of mould cost in the declared value and absence of managerial, administrative or financial control, extra consideration or mutuality of interest negated related-party status. Rule 9 read with Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules could not support revaluation; the duty demand, interest and penalties were unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365058</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>