https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468572 Differential central excise duty could not be sustained on a related-person valuation theory where the only basis was a familial connection between one partner of the buyer and a director of the assessee. In the absence of findings of mutuality of interest, financial flow back, or any direct or indirect business interest, mere relationship was held insufficient to treat the buyer as a related person or to adopt its sale price as the assessable value. The demand, along with interest and penalty, was therefore not sustainable and the assessee succeeded with consequential relief. en-us Tue, 15 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 May 2026 17:09:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468572 Differential central excise duty could not be sustained on a related-person valuation theory where the only basis was a familial connection between one partner of the buyer and a director of the assessee. In the absence of findings of mutuality of interest, financial flow back, or any direct or indirect business interest, mere relationship was held insufficient to treat the buyer as a related person or to adopt its sale price as the assessable value. The demand, along with interest and penalty, was therefore not sustainable and the assessee succeeded with consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 15 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468572