https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50060 An approved ex-factory price under Section 4(1)(a) was treated as the proper basis for valuation, and depot sales could not be revalued merely because most clearances moved through depots or because depot prices were higher. The Revenue had to show that the declared price was not the sole consideration or that there was any flow back of money; in the absence of such evidence, and with cost verification substantially supporting the declared value, a cost-based valuation could not be substituted. The duty demand also failed on limitation, as the same notice and valuation issue had already been held time-barred in earlier proceedings and that view had been affirmed by the Supreme Court. en-us Fri, 26 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:18:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50060 An approved ex-factory price under Section 4(1)(a) was treated as the proper basis for valuation, and depot sales could not be revalued merely because most clearances moved through depots or because depot prices were higher. The Revenue had to show that the declared price was not the sole consideration or that there was any flow back of money; in the absence of such evidence, and with cost verification substantially supporting the declared value, a cost-based valuation could not be substituted. The duty demand also failed on limitation, as the same notice and valuation issue had already been held time-barred in earlier proceedings and that view had been affirmed by the Supreme Court. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 26 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50060