https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54176 For removals by an export-oriented unit from a domestic tariff area, market price in India was not treated as the relevant criterion for assessable value under the second proviso to Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. A valuation proposal based on comparable goods manufactured by another concern also failed because the notice did not disclose material particulars of the alleged market enquiry and the record did not support the basis for dislodging the appellate finding. The proposed differential demand was therefore not sustained. en-us Tue, 28 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Oct 2010 13:38:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54176 For removals by an export-oriented unit from a domestic tariff area, market price in India was not treated as the relevant criterion for assessable value under the second proviso to Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. A valuation proposal based on comparable goods manufactured by another concern also failed because the notice did not disclose material particulars of the alleged market enquiry and the record did not support the basis for dislodging the appellate finding. The proposed differential demand was therefore not sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 28 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54176