https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468598 Valuation based on a purported related concern was rejected because mutuality of interest between the two concerns was not affirmatively established under section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944; a mere relationship between individuals connected with the firms was insufficient, and the other concern's sale price also included handling, transport and fitting charges without proper adjustment. The demand and penalty based on alleged clearances under Seva Ashram invoices likewise failed because the record did not show adequate material for suppression or clandestine removal, and the extended period of limitation could not be invoked on that basis. The demand and penalty were set aside. en-us Tue, 08 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 May 2026 14:21:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468598 Valuation based on a purported related concern was rejected because mutuality of interest between the two concerns was not affirmatively established under section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944; a mere relationship between individuals connected with the firms was insufficient, and the other concern's sale price also included handling, transport and fitting charges without proper adjustment. The demand and penalty based on alleged clearances under Seva Ashram invoices likewise failed because the record did not show adequate material for suppression or clandestine removal, and the extended period of limitation could not be invoked on that basis. The demand and penalty were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 08 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468598