https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187406 For excise valuation, common family connections or shared directorships were held insufficient to treat the appellant and the trading concern as related persons. The Tribunal found no evidence of mutuality of interest, financial flow-back, or business interdependence, and noted that the department had not established the required nexus through investigation. A declaration filed under protest and the marking of market agencies as "NA" did not amount to an admission of related-person status. On that footing, the duty demand, interest and penalties were set aside, while the appeal of the deceased appellant abated. en-us Thu, 08 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Nov 2016 13:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187406 For excise valuation, common family connections or shared directorships were held insufficient to treat the appellant and the trading concern as related persons. The Tribunal found no evidence of mutuality of interest, financial flow-back, or business interdependence, and noted that the department had not established the required nexus through investigation. A declaration filed under protest and the marking of market agencies as "NA" did not amount to an admission of related-person status. On that footing, the duty demand, interest and penalties were set aside, while the appeal of the deceased appellant abated. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 08 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187406