https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364541 Transaction value under central excise law could not be rejected where the appellant and WDPL dealt on a principal-to-principal basis, with no mutuality of interest, financial flow-back, or other material showing related-person status; mere sharing of premises or employees was insufficient, so re-determination of assessable value under the valuation rules was not justified. The demand was also time-barred because the sale pattern had been disclosed and audits had raised no adverse findings, while no positive suppression with intent to evade duty was established, making the extended limitation period inapplicable. On these grounds, the duty demand and consequential penalties were not sustainable, and relief followed. en-us Fri, 27 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Aug 2018 18:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364541 Transaction value under central excise law could not be rejected where the appellant and WDPL dealt on a principal-to-principal basis, with no mutuality of interest, financial flow-back, or other material showing related-person status; mere sharing of premises or employees was insufficient, so re-determination of assessable value under the valuation rules was not justified. The demand was also time-barred because the sale pattern had been disclosed and audits had raised no adverse findings, while no positive suppression with intent to evade duty was established, making the extended limitation period inapplicable. On these grounds, the duty demand and consequential penalties were not sustainable, and relief followed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 27 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364541