https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262381 Mere 50% shareholding in the buyer and exclusive supply of the respondent's production were found insufficient, by themselves, to establish related-person status or mutuality of interest under central excise valuation rules. In the absence of evidence of extra-commercial consideration or a business nexus showing actual control affecting price, the declared assessable value could not be re-determined. The record also did not disclose suppression or other facts needed to justify the extended limitation period, so the longer period was unavailable. The demand therefore failed on both valuation and limitation grounds, and the order setting it aside remained undisturbed. en-us Thu, 23 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 08 Aug 2015 14:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262381 Mere 50% shareholding in the buyer and exclusive supply of the respondent's production were found insufficient, by themselves, to establish related-person status or mutuality of interest under central excise valuation rules. In the absence of evidence of extra-commercial consideration or a business nexus showing actual control affecting price, the declared assessable value could not be re-determined. The record also did not disclose suppression or other facts needed to justify the extended limitation period, so the longer period was unavailable. The demand therefore failed on both valuation and limitation grounds, and the order setting it aside remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 23 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262381