<?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 357 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54083</link>
    <description>Excise valuation under the transaction value regime can be displaced only if the department proves that the declared price does not reflect real consideration, such as by showing flow back or other undisclosed benefit. On facts, inter-company sales between oil marketing companies made under a Government-directed arrangement, aimed at better facility use and lower transport costs, remained commercial transactions at arm&#039;s length. Mutual benefit, import-parity pricing, and different prices to different buyers were not enough to reject the declared value without proof of extra consideration. The valuation was therefore accepted, and the duty demand, penalties, and extended limitation were not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 May 2024 13:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92560" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 357 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54083</link>
      <description>Excise valuation under the transaction value regime can be displaced only if the department proves that the declared price does not reflect real consideration, such as by showing flow back or other undisclosed benefit. On facts, inter-company sales between oil marketing companies made under a Government-directed arrangement, aimed at better facility use and lower transport costs, remained commercial transactions at arm&#039;s length. Mutual benefit, import-parity pricing, and different prices to different buyers were not enough to reject the declared value without proof of extra consideration. The valuation was therefore accepted, and the duty demand, penalties, and extended limitation were not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54083</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>