Brand-name valuation of sanitary goods upheld on assessee's own price; no related-person basis found on the record.

Sanitary goods cleared under another person's brand name were valued on the assessee's own price, not the brand owner's market price, because the record showed no tangible evidence of direct business interest or price manipulation. The appellate authority also noted that marketing costs were borne by the trading company, which explained the price addition. On the material available, the assessee and the brand owner could not be treated as related persons, and there was no basis to disturb the existing valuation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessable value of sanitary goods cleared under another person's brand name was required to be determined on the basis of the brand owner's market price, and whether the assessee and the brand owner could be treated as related persons on the material available.

Analysis: The Revenue sought adoption of the brand owner's selling price for valuation. The appellate authority had found no tangible evidence of direct business interest between the assessee and the brand owner and no material to show manipulation of the assessee's price. It was also noticed that the marketing cost was borne by the trading company, which explained value addition in the price. The record disclosed no basis for disturbing those findings.

Conclusion: The assessable value was correctly determined on the assessee's own price, and the plea to adopt the brand owner's market price was rejected.

---