<?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>1998 (1) TMI 92 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45479</link>
    <description>Where an arrangement is not at arm&#039;s length, the agreed price cannot be accepted as the true wholesale price for excise valuation. The Supreme Court treated the relationship between the parties and the contract terms as decisive and held that the price charged under such a transaction did not reflect a genuine wholesale price. The excise valuation adopted by the authorities was therefore sustained, and the challenge to that valuation failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:21:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84006" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (1) TMI 92 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45479</link>
      <description>Where an arrangement is not at arm&#039;s length, the agreed price cannot be accepted as the true wholesale price for excise valuation. The Supreme Court treated the relationship between the parties and the contract terms as decisive and held that the price charged under such a transaction did not reflect a genuine wholesale price. The excise valuation adopted by the authorities was therefore sustained, and the challenge to that valuation failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45479</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>