https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385508 Modification or rectification of an existing mould does not create a new product with a distinct name, character or use, so the activity fails the test of manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944; charges for mould repair and modification were therefore not includible in the aggregate value of clearances. A proprietary concern and a company are not treated as related persons or an inter-connected undertaking merely because of their legal form, and in the absence of evidence of direct or indirect business interest, Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 could not be applied; the downstream sale price of the other undertaking was not a valid basis for SSI valuation. The demand and penalty were set aside. en-us Fri, 06 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Sep 2019 06:53:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385508 Modification or rectification of an existing mould does not create a new product with a distinct name, character or use, so the activity fails the test of manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944; charges for mould repair and modification were therefore not includible in the aggregate value of clearances. A proprietary concern and a company are not treated as related persons or an inter-connected undertaking merely because of their legal form, and in the absence of evidence of direct or indirect business interest, Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 could not be applied; the downstream sale price of the other undertaking was not a valid basis for SSI valuation. The demand and penalty were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 06 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385508