Excise valuation and related-person tests: non-compete fees need a direct nexus, and common shareholding alone is insufficient.

Non-compete and licence payments are not treated as additional sale consideration for excise valuation unless a direct nexus with the sale price is established. Common shareholding, common directors, or other business dealings by themselves do not make two companies related persons where the sales are at arm's length. The discussion also notes that repeated disclosure of the agreement, shareholding pattern, and commercial arrangements defeats an allegation of suppression, so the extended limitation period is not available and consequential penalty and interest cannot survive.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the price at which the goods were sold by the manufacturer to its affiliate could be rejected on the ground that non-compete and licence fees formed part of the sale consideration, and on the further ground that the buyer was a related person. (ii) Whether the duty demand, penalty and interest could be sustained in view of the limitation plea and the absence of suppression of facts.

Issue (i): Whether the price at which the goods were sold by the manufacturer to its affiliate could be rejected on the ground that non-compete and licence fees formed part of the sale consideration, and on the further ground that the buyer was a related person.

Analysis: The agreement and surrounding facts did not show that the non-compete fee or licence fee was an additional consideration for the sale of detergent powder. The mere fact that both entities were subsidiaries of a common holding company, or that they had common directors and business dealings, did not by itself establish mutuality of interest so as to make them related persons. The sales were between two public limited companies on an arm's length basis, and the assessable value could not be displaced by an invented method based on maximum retail price enhancement rather than the statutory valuation scheme.

Conclusion: The valuation adopted by the department could not be sustained, and the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the duty demand, penalty and interest could be sustained in view of the limitation plea and the absence of suppression of facts.

Analysis: The record showed repeated disclosure of the business transfer, the agreement, the shareholding pattern, and the relevant commercial arrangements to the department over time. In these circumstances, the allegation of suppression was not made out, and the extended period could not be invoked. Once the substantive demand failed on merits and limitation, the consequential penalty and interest also could not survive.

Conclusion: The demand was barred by limitation and the consequential penalty and interest were not maintainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appellate order set aside the impugned valuation-based duty demand and all consequential reliefs, with the appeals allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Non-compete or licence payments are not to be treated as additional sale consideration unless a direct nexus with the price is established, and common shareholding or common directors alone do not make two companies related persons for excise valuation purposes.

---