Related-person valuation fails where no extra consideration is proved and finished goods value cannot replace sold fabrics.

Assessable value for printed cotton fabrics sold to stitching units cannot be enhanced by treating the stitchers as related persons unless the statutory relationship and any additional consideration or mutual business interest are proved. On the recorded facts, no extra consideration from the stitchers to the seller was established, and the stitchers were found to be users of the fabrics for conversion into made-up articles, not resellers. The value of finished bed-sheets and pillow covers could not be substituted for the value of cotton fabrics sold in running length because the products were commercially distinct. The valuation adopted by the department was therefore unsustainable, and the demand based on the stitched-goods value was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessable value of printed cotton fabrics sold to stitching units could be determined by treating the stitchers as related persons and by adopting the value of the stitched bed-sheets and pillow covers under the valuation rules.

Analysis: The notice alleged that the sale price of the fabrics was not the sole consideration and sought to invoke the related-person concept under Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, together with Rule 6(c)(i) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975. The recorded evidence, however, did not establish any additional consideration flowing from the stitchers to the appellants, nor did it show mutuality of business interest or the kind of relationship required to treat the stitchers as related persons. The stitchers were not shown to be reselling the fabrics; they used them for conversion into made-up articles. The value of stitched bed-sheets and pillow covers could not, on the facts, be substituted for the value of cotton fabrics in running length, since the two were commercially distinct products.

Conclusion: The valuation adopted by the department was unsustainable, and the stitchers could not be treated as related persons on the basis alleged.

Final Conclusion: The demand based on the value of stitched goods was set aside and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Assessable value cannot be enhanced by treating an independent buyer as a related person unless the statutory relationship and additional consideration or mutual business interest are proved, and the value of a commercially distinct finished product cannot be substituted for the value of the goods actually sold.

---