<?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>2001 (10) TMI 113 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46140</link>
    <description>Findings of fact recorded by the final fact-finding forum will not be interfered with in appeal unless they are perverse or legally erroneous. The Tribunal compared the disputed transactions with similar contracts entered into by the same buyer with other manufacturers and held that the department had not established extra-commercial considerations; the Supreme Court found no perversity or legal error in that appreciation of evidence and treated the valuation-related conclusions as factual findings not open to disturbance. The Commissioner&#039;s valuation and penalty order was therefore not sustained, and no interference was called for.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:41:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84666" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (10) TMI 113 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46140</link>
      <description>Findings of fact recorded by the final fact-finding forum will not be interfered with in appeal unless they are perverse or legally erroneous. The Tribunal compared the disputed transactions with similar contracts entered into by the same buyer with other manufacturers and held that the department had not established extra-commercial considerations; the Supreme Court found no perversity or legal error in that appreciation of evidence and treated the valuation-related conclusions as factual findings not open to disturbance. The Commissioner&#039;s valuation and penalty order was therefore not sustained, and no interference was called for.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46140</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>