https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42539 For excise duty valuation under the unamended Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the invoice price could not be rejected merely because the seller was a subsidiary and the buyer its principal company. Special relationship alone was insufficient to displace the declared wholesale cash price; the authorities needed evidence that the price was not at arm's length or that the buyer had in fact received favoured treatment. In the absence of such proof, the assessable value could not be revised on relationship alone, and the valuation orders were unsustainable. en-us Tue, 13 Jun 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Jun 2010 18:01:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42539 For excise duty valuation under the unamended Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the invoice price could not be rejected merely because the seller was a subsidiary and the buyer its principal company. Special relationship alone was insufficient to displace the declared wholesale cash price; the authorities needed evidence that the price was not at arm's length or that the buyer had in fact received favoured treatment. In the absence of such proof, the assessable value could not be revised on relationship alone, and the valuation orders were unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 13 Jun 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42539