https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125904 For excise valuation, related-person status under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rules 9 and 10 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 requires evidence of direct or indirect business interest, control, or mutuality of interest. Common directors or partners alone were held insufficient, and in the absence of documentary proof of common management or control, the buyer could not be treated as a related person. The buyer's FOB export price therefore could not replace the job-work valuation method as the assessable value, and the appeal failed. en-us Wed, 25 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:07:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125904 For excise valuation, related-person status under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rules 9 and 10 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 requires evidence of direct or indirect business interest, control, or mutuality of interest. Common directors or partners alone were held insufficient, and in the absence of documentary proof of common management or control, the buyer could not be treated as a related person. The buyer's FOB export price therefore could not replace the job-work valuation method as the assessable value, and the appeal failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 25 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125904