Excise valuation and related-person tests require proof of mutuality of interest; common directors alone do not defeat principal-to-principal sales.

Excise valuation depends on proof that the buyer and assessee are related persons or that additional consideration passed directly or indirectly; without evidence of mutuality of interest, common directors alone do not establish such a relationship. Where the record does not show that the discount structure represents extra consideration, the sale remains a principal-to-principal transaction and the declared transaction value is not displaced. The commentary therefore states that a related-person allegation against distinct private limited companies must be supported by material evidence, failing which differential duty cannot be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent and the buyer were related persons for excise valuation purposes and whether the transaction was on a principal-to-principal basis.

Analysis: The show cause notice rested only on the allegation that the assessee and the buyer were related persons and that additional consideration flowed directly or indirectly from the buyer to the assessee. The record disclosed that both entities were private limited companies, and there was no evidence of mutuality of interest between them. The mere fact that some directors were common did not establish relationship for valuation purposes. In the absence of material showing that the discount structure represented additional consideration, the transaction could not be treated as one between related persons.

Conclusion: The allegation of related-person relationship was not proved, and the sale was correctly treated as one on principal-to-principal basis, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The demand for differential duty failed because the Revenue did not establish the relationship or additional consideration necessary to disturb the declared transaction value.

Ratio Decidendi: For excise valuation, a related-person allegation against distinct private companies must be supported by evidence of mutuality of interest or additional consideration; absent such proof, the sale is to be treated as a principal-to-principal transaction.

---