<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2022 (2) TMI 952 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418701</link>
    <description>Mere common shareholding, common directors, sole-selling arrangements, shared promotional expenses, or contractual restrictions do not by themselves establish related-person status under Central Excise valuation rules. The governing test is mutuality of interest in each other&#039;s business, requiring reciprocal interest rather than a one-sided commercial or managerial connection. On the facts, the entities dealt on principal-to-principal terms and the revenue material was insufficient to displace the declared transaction value. The appellants were therefore not related persons, the assessable value could not be re-fixed on the impugned basis, and the demand, interest, and penalties founded on rejection of transaction value failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2022 08:26:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=670953" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (2) TMI 952 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418701</link>
      <description>Mere common shareholding, common directors, sole-selling arrangements, shared promotional expenses, or contractual restrictions do not by themselves establish related-person status under Central Excise valuation rules. The governing test is mutuality of interest in each other&#039;s business, requiring reciprocal interest rather than a one-sided commercial or managerial connection. On the facts, the entities dealt on principal-to-principal terms and the revenue material was insufficient to displace the declared transaction value. The appellants were therefore not related persons, the assessable value could not be re-fixed on the impugned basis, and the demand, interest, and penalties founded on rejection of transaction value failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418701</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>