<?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>1982 (8) TMI 65 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41918</link>
    <description>A buyer-seller arrangement between manufacturers and wholesalers does not, by itself, make the wholesalers &quot;related persons&quot; under excise valuation law; the definition requires real direct or indirect financial or managerial interest in each other&#039;s business, and no such association was shown. In valuing goods, only manufacturing cost and manufacturing profit are relevant, so post-manufacturing expenses cannot be added; the assessing authority also had to consider the assessees&#039; cost accountant&#039;s certificate and request for provisional assessment. Because the valuation process ignored this material and denied a fair inquiry, the price-list rejection and valuation order were set aside for reconsideration and provisional assessment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Aug 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Jun 2010 10:01:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80447" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (8) TMI 65 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41918</link>
      <description>A buyer-seller arrangement between manufacturers and wholesalers does not, by itself, make the wholesalers &quot;related persons&quot; under excise valuation law; the definition requires real direct or indirect financial or managerial interest in each other&#039;s business, and no such association was shown. In valuing goods, only manufacturing cost and manufacturing profit are relevant, so post-manufacturing expenses cannot be added; the assessing authority also had to consider the assessees&#039; cost accountant&#039;s certificate and request for provisional assessment. Because the valuation process ignored this material and denied a fair inquiry, the price-list rejection and valuation order were set aside for reconsideration and provisional assessment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Aug 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41918</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>