Related person valuation fails absent mutuality of interest or all-pervasive control; revived dropped duty demand also set aside.

A de novo adjudicating authority cannot revive a duty demand that had earlier been dropped and was outside the scope of the remand; the confirmation of the dropped demand was therefore unsustainable and set aside. In valuation, a manufacturer and a marketing company are not related persons merely because the entire production is sold through that company, it pays marketing expenses, or provides loans. Absent evidence of mutuality of interest, common control, or all-pervasive financial or managerial domination, principal-to-principal dealings remain intact. The related-person valuation, along with the consequential penalty and interest, was thus not sustainable, and the impugned order was set aside in entirety.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the adjudicating authority could, in de novo proceedings, confirm the duty demand of Rs. 28,35,170/- when that demand had already been dropped and was not the subject matter of the remand; (ii) Whether the appellant company and the marketing company were related persons so as to justify valuation on the basis of the price charged by the marketing company, and consequential penalty and interest.

Issue (i): Whether the adjudicating authority could, in de novo proceedings, confirm the duty demand of Rs. 28,35,170/- when that demand had already been dropped and was not the subject matter of the remand.

Analysis: The earlier order had dropped this demand, the Department had not appealed against that part, and the Tribunal's remand was confined only to the dispute relating to the duty demand of Rs. 35,63,928/- and the connected penalties. In de novo adjudication, the authority could not reopen or revive the dropped demand, as it was outside the scope of the remand and had already progressed into a separate refund controversy.

Conclusion: The confirmation of the duty demand of Rs. 28,35,170/- was unsustainable and had to be set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant company and the marketing company were related persons so as to justify valuation on the basis of the price charged by the marketing company, and consequential penalty and interest.

Analysis: For treating the entities as related persons, there had to be evidence of mutuality of interest, common control, or an arrangement showing that the marketing company was merely an extension of the manufacturer. The material relied upon by the Revenue, such as the sale of the entire production to the marketing company, provision of loans, payment of marketing expenses, and use of depots, did not by itself establish mutuality of interest or lack of principal-to-principal dealings. The record did not show any all-pervasive financial or managerial control, and the price difference was not shown to be artificial or driven by extra-commercial consideration.

Conclusion: The appellant company and the marketing company were not related persons, and the duty demand under this valuation theory, along with the penalties and interest, was not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside in entirety, and the appeals were allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: A manufacturer and its distributor or marketing company cannot be treated as related persons merely because the entire production is sold through that company or because the latter incurs marketing expenses, unless mutuality of interest or all-pervasive control is established by evidence.

---