https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391280 Valuation under related-person provisions requires the Revenue to prove inter-connection, common management, control, or other legally relevant relationship, together with supporting evidence of flowback or mutual interest. On the facts, shareholding and family relationship alone did not establish that the marketing concern controlled the respondent or that both entities were under the same management. Sales through the marketing concern were only part of total sales, with the balance made to independent buyers and Government bodies, and no documentary evidence showed financial flowback or complete control. The related-person valuation provisions and Rule 10 were therefore not attracted. en-us Wed, 18 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Jan 2020 12:04:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391280 Valuation under related-person provisions requires the Revenue to prove inter-connection, common management, control, or other legally relevant relationship, together with supporting evidence of flowback or mutual interest. On the facts, shareholding and family relationship alone did not establish that the marketing concern controlled the respondent or that both entities were under the same management. Sales through the marketing concern were only part of total sales, with the balance made to independent buyers and Government bodies, and no documentary evidence showed financial flowback or complete control. The related-person valuation provisions and Rule 10 were therefore not attracted. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 18 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391280