https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766006 CESTAT Chennai upheld duty demand against a private limited company for undervalued clearances to related distributor. The company's directors held 99% shares while their parents were partners in the distributor firm, establishing mutuality of interest under Section 4(3)(b) of Central Excise Act. Valuation under Rule 9 of CEVR 2000 was applicable. Interest on differential duty was confirmed as duty had been passed to end customers. However, penalty under Section 11AC was not imposed as department failed to file cross-objection and appellant cannot be placed in worse position on appeal. Appeal rejected. en-us Thu, 13 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Feb 2025 08:00:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766006 CESTAT Chennai upheld duty demand against a private limited company for undervalued clearances to related distributor. The company's directors held 99% shares while their parents were partners in the distributor firm, establishing mutuality of interest under Section 4(3)(b) of Central Excise Act. Valuation under Rule 9 of CEVR 2000 was applicable. Interest on differential duty was confirmed as duty had been passed to end customers. However, penalty under Section 11AC was not imposed as department failed to file cross-objection and appellant cannot be placed in worse position on appeal. Appeal rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 13 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766006