https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200726 Transaction value of goods sold to a buyer with common directors could not be rejected merely because the parties were interconnected undertakings. The decisive test remained whether the relationship influenced the price through mutuality of business interest or extra-commercial consideration. On the facts recorded, the entities had separate shareholding patterns, no holding-subsidiary relationship, and no evidence that the declared price was affected by the connection. Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 was therefore inapplicable, and valuation had to proceed on the transaction value. The Revenue's challenge failed. en-us Tue, 18 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Apr 2018 20:15:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200726 Transaction value of goods sold to a buyer with common directors could not be rejected merely because the parties were interconnected undertakings. The decisive test remained whether the relationship influenced the price through mutuality of business interest or extra-commercial consideration. On the facts recorded, the entities had separate shareholding patterns, no holding-subsidiary relationship, and no evidence that the declared price was affected by the connection. Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 was therefore inapplicable, and valuation had to proceed on the transaction value. The Revenue's challenge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 18 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200726