Substantial question of law absent where related-person finding and trade discount justification rested on factual evidence.

The appeal concerned whether any substantial question of law arose from findings that the parties were not related persons and that the additional trade discount was justified by expenses on seminars, publicity and marketing. The Supreme Court treated both matters as factual determinations based on the evidence and the Tribunal's appreciation of that evidence. As no legal error was shown and no substantial question of law arose, the appeal was not interfered with and was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal raised any substantial question of law in relation to the finding that the parties were not related persons and that the additional trade discount was explained by expenses towards seminars, publicity and marketing.

Analysis: The finding that the parties were not related persons and that the extra discount was supported by the stated business expenditure was based on facts. No legal error or substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's appreciation of the evidence.

Conclusion: The appeal did not merit interference and was rejected on the ground that it involved only findings of fact, with no substantial question of law.

---