Excise valuation and related-person test: common directors alone were insufficient, so FOB export price could not replace job-work valuation.

For excise valuation, related-person status under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rules 9 and 10 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 requires evidence of direct or indirect business interest, control, or mutuality of interest. Common directors or partners alone were held insufficient, and in the absence of documentary proof of common management or control, the buyer could not be treated as a related person. The buyer's FOB export price therefore could not replace the job-work valuation method as the assessable value, and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant and the buyer were related persons for excise valuation purposes, and whether the FOB export price of the buyer could be adopted as the assessable value instead of the job-work valuation method under the valuation rules.

Analysis: The relevant post-amendment valuation framework required the relationship test under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the connected Rules 9 and 10 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. Merely showing that some directors and partners were common was held insufficient to establish that the two entities had direct or indirect interest in each other's business or mutuality of interest. In the absence of documentary evidence showing control, common management, or the other indicia necessary to treat them as related persons, the fact that the appellant carried out job work for the buyer did not justify adoption of the buyer's FOB export price as the assessable value. The established job-work valuation principle therefore continued to apply.

Conclusion: The appellant and the buyer were not proved to be related persons, and the buyer's FOB export price could not be taken as the assessable value. The appeal failed.

---