https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117568 For excise valuation, related-person status under Section 4(4)(c) requires proof of mutuality of interest in each other's business; common directors, shared premises, shareholding and commercial arrangements alone are insufficient. On the facts, the record did not show that the buyer was an arm, shadow or extension of the manufacturer, and the pricing arrangement was not shown to be a colourable device to depress assessable value, so valuation could not be disturbed on that basis. For limitation, extended period under Section 11A requires suppression or deliberate misstatement with intent to evade duty; disclosure of the agreement and absence of positive evasion defeated that basis, so the extended period was unavailable. en-us Fri, 07 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:57:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117568 For excise valuation, related-person status under Section 4(4)(c) requires proof of mutuality of interest in each other's business; common directors, shared premises, shareholding and commercial arrangements alone are insufficient. On the facts, the record did not show that the buyer was an arm, shadow or extension of the manufacturer, and the pricing arrangement was not shown to be a colourable device to depress assessable value, so valuation could not be disturbed on that basis. For limitation, extended period under Section 11A requires suppression or deliberate misstatement with intent to evade duty; disclosure of the agreement and absence of positive evasion defeated that basis, so the extended period was unavailable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 07 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117568