<?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>2005 (2) TMI 121 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47215</link>
    <description>An exemption notification cannot be denied merely because the buyer is a holding company or otherwise a related person. The decisive requirement is proof that the relationship actually influenced the invoice price; absent such evidence, the notification remains available. Here, the Department relied only on the existence of the relationship and produced no material showing commercial, financial, or other influence on pricing, while comparable sales to others at the same price went unrebutted. The burden to establish non-fulfilment of the notification condition lay on the Department, and it was not discharged. The exemption was therefore upheld in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2014 11:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85734" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 121 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47215</link>
      <description>An exemption notification cannot be denied merely because the buyer is a holding company or otherwise a related person. The decisive requirement is proof that the relationship actually influenced the invoice price; absent such evidence, the notification remains available. Here, the Department relied only on the existence of the relationship and produced no material showing commercial, financial, or other influence on pricing, while comparable sales to others at the same price went unrebutted. The burden to establish non-fulfilment of the notification condition lay on the Department, and it was not discharged. The exemption was therefore upheld in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47215</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>