<?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 (6) TMI 167 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54383</link>
    <description>Extended limitation under excise valuation law is not sustainable without proof of suppression, fraud, collusion, or wilful misstatement, and departmental awareness of the price lists and lower sale prices defeated invocation of the extended period. Related person status under section 4 requires mutuality of interest in each other&#039;s business; family links with company directors, without more, did not establish that test. The sales were bulk factory-gate wholesale sales, and a lower price alone did not prove undervaluation. On those findings, the declared factory-gate price remained the normal price and the duty demand and penalties were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:48:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92860" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (6) TMI 167 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54383</link>
      <description>Extended limitation under excise valuation law is not sustainable without proof of suppression, fraud, collusion, or wilful misstatement, and departmental awareness of the price lists and lower sale prices defeated invocation of the extended period. Related person status under section 4 requires mutuality of interest in each other&#039;s business; family links with company directors, without more, did not establish that test. The sales were bulk factory-gate wholesale sales, and a lower price alone did not prove undervaluation. On those findings, the declared factory-gate price remained the normal price and the duty demand and penalties were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54383</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>