https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358651 For central excise valuation, mere shareholding of 39% and nomination of one director did not by themselves establish that the buyer and seller were related persons under Section 4(3)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The tribunal found no evidence of mutuality of business interest or any depressed price arising from extra-commercial considerations, so valuation could not be made under Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. In the absence of such proof, Rule 10 applied and the bona fide transaction value had to be accepted. The related-person valuation, duty demand and penalties were therefore set aside. en-us Wed, 11 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Apr 2018 06:18:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358651 For central excise valuation, mere shareholding of 39% and nomination of one director did not by themselves establish that the buyer and seller were related persons under Section 4(3)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The tribunal found no evidence of mutuality of business interest or any depressed price arising from extra-commercial considerations, so valuation could not be made under Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. In the absence of such proof, Rule 10 applied and the bona fide transaction value had to be accepted. The related-person valuation, duty demand and penalties were therefore set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 11 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358651