https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253729 A duty demand for alleged misdeclaration and incorrect classification of zinc goods failed because no sample was tested, no reliable evidence proved that the goods were prime quality zinc ingots, and witness statements could not be relied on without compliance with Section 9D(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The demand based on related-person valuation also failed because mutuality of interest was not proved; common family links, a common director, and limited buyer-premises activity were insufficient, and the assessee's sales to independent buyers supported acceptance of the transaction value. The duty demands, penalty, and confiscation were set aside. en-us Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Dec 2014 21:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253729 A duty demand for alleged misdeclaration and incorrect classification of zinc goods failed because no sample was tested, no reliable evidence proved that the goods were prime quality zinc ingots, and witness statements could not be relied on without compliance with Section 9D(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The demand based on related-person valuation also failed because mutuality of interest was not proved; common family links, a common director, and limited buyer-premises activity were insufficient, and the assessee's sales to independent buyers supported acceptance of the transaction value. The duty demands, penalty, and confiscation were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253729