https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53578 Buyer-wise price differentiation was treated as legally relevant where sales were made to distinct classes of buyers on disclosed invoices and prices, so rejection of the declared assessable value was not justified. The demand was also barred by limitation because the invoices had been filed with RT 12 returns and no positive suppression was shown. Inputs moved directly for job work did not justify duty demand or Modvat credit denial where the final products had already suffered duty and no revenue loss arose. Credit could not be denied merely because the invoice issuer was not the actual manufacturer when duty-paid documents supported the claim. Once the principal demands failed, exemption under Notification No. 1/93 and consequential penalties also fell away. en-us Fri, 31 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:51:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53578 Buyer-wise price differentiation was treated as legally relevant where sales were made to distinct classes of buyers on disclosed invoices and prices, so rejection of the declared assessable value was not justified. The demand was also barred by limitation because the invoices had been filed with RT 12 returns and no positive suppression was shown. Inputs moved directly for job work did not justify duty demand or Modvat credit denial where the final products had already suffered duty and no revenue loss arose. Credit could not be denied merely because the invoice issuer was not the actual manufacturer when duty-paid documents supported the claim. Once the principal demands failed, exemption under Notification No. 1/93 and consequential penalties also fell away. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 31 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53578