https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119838 A prior adjudication did not bar fresh examination on res judicata, as the earlier decision had not attained a preclusive status in this matter. Under section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, a holding-company and subsidiary-company relationship, or majority shareholding alone, was insufficient to establish that the parties were related persons; mutuality of interest, flow-back, or extra-commercial consideration had to be shown. On the facts, no such evidence existed, so the related-person valuation basis failed and the duty demand and penalty founded on that premise could not stand. en-us Mon, 24 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Jul 2012 14:27:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119838 A prior adjudication did not bar fresh examination on res judicata, as the earlier decision had not attained a preclusive status in this matter. Under section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, a holding-company and subsidiary-company relationship, or majority shareholding alone, was insufficient to establish that the parties were related persons; mutuality of interest, flow-back, or extra-commercial consideration had to be shown. On the facts, no such evidence existed, so the related-person valuation basis failed and the duty demand and penalty founded on that premise could not stand. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 24 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119838