https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774268 The CESTAT Hyderabad held that the appellant and joint venture company were not related persons under Section 4(3)(B) of Central Excise Act 1944 for valuation purposes. While acknowledging they were interconnected undertakings post-2007, the tribunal found no mutuality of interest between parties as required under sub-clause (iv). The department's reliance on potential dividend increases to establish business interest was rejected, as previous litigation established absence of mutuality under the joint venture agreement. The demand invoking Rule 10(a) read with Rule 9 for valuation was unsustainable. Appeal allowed, impugned order set aside. en-us Fri, 04 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Jul 2025 08:42:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774268 The CESTAT Hyderabad held that the appellant and joint venture company were not related persons under Section 4(3)(B) of Central Excise Act 1944 for valuation purposes. While acknowledging they were interconnected undertakings post-2007, the tribunal found no mutuality of interest between parties as required under sub-clause (iv). The department's reliance on potential dividend increases to establish business interest was rejected, as previous litigation established absence of mutuality under the joint venture agreement. The demand invoking Rule 10(a) read with Rule 9 for valuation was unsustainable. Appeal allowed, impugned order set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 04 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774268