<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1999 (5) TMI 265 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92117</link>
    <description>For valuation under section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, related person status requires mutuality of interest, meaning each party must have a direct or indirect business interest in the other. Mere shareholding by the buyer in the assessee is insufficient without corresponding interest of the assessee in the buyer, and a commercial relationship or high sales volume does not by itself displace principal-to-principal dealing. On the stated facts, CEAT Ltd. was not a related person, there was no proof of extra commercial consideration, and its resale price could not be adopted as the assessable value; the demand and penalties were therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:33:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=129178" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (5) TMI 265 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92117</link>
      <description>For valuation under section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, related person status requires mutuality of interest, meaning each party must have a direct or indirect business interest in the other. Mere shareholding by the buyer in the assessee is insufficient without corresponding interest of the assessee in the buyer, and a commercial relationship or high sales volume does not by itself displace principal-to-principal dealing. On the stated facts, CEAT Ltd. was not a related person, there was no proof of extra commercial consideration, and its resale price could not be adopted as the assessable value; the demand and penalties were therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92117</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>