https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74298 A buyer was not a related person under Section 4 merely because both companies shared a common foreign holding company or one acted as distributor; the statutory test required a legally relevant holding-subsidiary relationship or direct or indirect mutual business interest, which was not shown. Even so, the declared sale price could not automatically be accepted as assessable value because the buyer performed substantial pre-sale and post-sale services that may have formed part of the real consideration, requiring valuation of the non-price elements. For short levy, Rule 9(2) was not attracted where clearances were made on approved price and classification lists without clandestine removal, and the demand fell under the residuary recovery provision rather than Rule 10. en-us Fri, 30 Dec 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Jun 2011 10:30:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74298 A buyer was not a related person under Section 4 merely because both companies shared a common foreign holding company or one acted as distributor; the statutory test required a legally relevant holding-subsidiary relationship or direct or indirect mutual business interest, which was not shown. Even so, the declared sale price could not automatically be accepted as assessable value because the buyer performed substantial pre-sale and post-sale services that may have formed part of the real consideration, requiring valuation of the non-price elements. For short levy, Rule 9(2) was not attracted where clearances were made on approved price and classification lists without clandestine removal, and the demand fell under the residuary recovery provision rather than Rule 10. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 30 Dec 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74298