https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351870 Related-person valuation under central excise requires proof of mutuality of interest in each other's business; common directors, group-company status, or unsupported accounting references were held insufficient. Rule 9 read with Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 was considered inapplicable because clearances were not made exclusively to or through the alleged related person. Proportionate reversal of Cenvat credit attributable to exempted goods was treated as sufficient where validated by statute. Bearing and wearing plates were covered by Notification No. 06/2002 on the basis of the prescribed certificate and project use. The extended period of limitation was not invokable absent suppression or mala fide intent. en-us Wed, 16 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Jan 2018 13:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351870 Related-person valuation under central excise requires proof of mutuality of interest in each other's business; common directors, group-company status, or unsupported accounting references were held insufficient. Rule 9 read with Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 was considered inapplicable because clearances were not made exclusively to or through the alleged related person. Proportionate reversal of Cenvat credit attributable to exempted goods was treated as sufficient where validated by statute. Bearing and wearing plates were covered by Notification No. 06/2002 on the basis of the prescribed certificate and project use. The extended period of limitation was not invokable absent suppression or mala fide intent. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 16 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351870