https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381184 Related-person valuation under Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 requires proof of mutuality of interest or other extra-commercial consideration; common directors, common shareholding, or balance-sheet references alone are insufficient. On the facts, no evidence showed that the buyer's resale price was influenced by the relationship, so the buyer's resale price could not be adopted. The demand also failed on merits because comparable invoices showed prices to the buyer were equal to or higher than those charged to independent buyers, and the comparisons used below were not valid. In the absence of suppression or other material, the extended limitation period was also unavailable. en-us Mon, 03 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Jun 2019 10:07:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381184 Related-person valuation under Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 requires proof of mutuality of interest or other extra-commercial consideration; common directors, common shareholding, or balance-sheet references alone are insufficient. On the facts, no evidence showed that the buyer's resale price was influenced by the relationship, so the buyer's resale price could not be adopted. The demand also failed on merits because comparable invoices showed prices to the buyer were equal to or higher than those charged to independent buyers, and the comparisons used below were not valid. In the absence of suppression or other material, the extended limitation period was also unavailable. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 03 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381184