https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206912 Nomark was treated as an Ayurvedic medicament rather than a cosmetic because it was sold under a drug licence, its label indicated therapeutic use for scars, pigmentation and stretch marks, and its composition was substantially similar to an earlier product accepted as Ayurvedic medicine. Related-person valuation was rejected because the department did not establish mutuality of interest or flow-back between the assessee and the buyer company, and the same product was sold to other buyers at the same price. With no proven suppression or misstatement, the extended period of limitation failed, and the penalties also fell with the duty demand and valuation case. en-us Tue, 11 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Aug 2013 10:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206912 Nomark was treated as an Ayurvedic medicament rather than a cosmetic because it was sold under a drug licence, its label indicated therapeutic use for scars, pigmentation and stretch marks, and its composition was substantially similar to an earlier product accepted as Ayurvedic medicine. Related-person valuation was rejected because the department did not establish mutuality of interest or flow-back between the assessee and the buyer company, and the same product was sold to other buyers at the same price. With no proven suppression or misstatement, the extended period of limitation failed, and the penalties also fell with the duty demand and valuation case. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 11 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206912