Related persons under excise law require proof of mutual interest; common management alone cannot justify clubbing clearances.

Two companies could not be treated as related persons for excise valuation merely because they shared directors, premises, telephone numbers, a letterhead reference, or inter-company balances. In the absence of evidence showing the statutory ingredients of relationship or mutuality of interest under section 4(3)(b), the related-person valuation mechanism could not be applied and clearances could not be clubbed to deny small scale industry exemption. The assessee was therefore entitled to claim SSI exemption independently, and the demand, interest, and penalty were held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the buyer and seller companies were related persons within the meaning of excise valuation law so as to justify clubbing of clearances and denial of small scale industry exemption.

Analysis: The two units were distinct legal entities. Common directors, common premises, shared telephone numbers, a reference in a letterhead, and inter-company balances were not enough by themselves to establish that they were inter-connected undertakings, relatives, or otherwise so associated as to have direct or indirect interest in each other's business. In the absence of evidence satisfying the statutory definition of related persons under section 4(3)(b), the valuation mechanism applicable to related persons could not be invoked, and there was no basis to club the clearances for SSI exemption purposes.

Conclusion: The companies were not related persons, and the assessee was entitled to SSI exemption independently.

Final Conclusion: The demand, interest, and penalty were not sustainable, and the revenue appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: For treating two companies as related persons under excise law, the statutory ingredients of relationship or mutuality of interest must be proved by evidence; common management features alone do not establish such relationship.

---