TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the buyer was a related person of the manufacturer so as to justify clubbing of the sale price for assessable value, demand of differential duty and imposition of penalties.
Analysis: The arrangement between the two independent legal entities was found to be a mutually beneficial commercial arrangement arising out of technology transfer and common marketing, not proof of mutuality of interest in each other's business. There was no shareholding link, no evidence of financial flow back, and the goods were also sold to independent buyers at the same price. Mere commercial dealings, even if structured through agreements or involving marketing of the same products, were insufficient to establish that the parties were related persons within the meaning of the valuation provision.
Conclusion: The buyer was not a related person, the higher sale price could not be adopted for valuation, the demand of differential duty was unsustainable, and the penalties were not justified.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Related-person valuation under central excise requires proof of mutuality of interest affecting the price, and absent such evidence, assessable value must be based on the actual independent sale price.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
