Related person valuation under excise law cannot treat close relatives' shareholding as clubbed control for threshold purposes.

For valuation under section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Tribunal reiterated that shareholding of close relatives cannot be clubbed to determine whether firms are related persons or whether the 50% control threshold is met. The expression "related person" must be confined to the statutory language, and adjudicating authorities cannot enlarge it by importing a basis not found in the Act. On the facts, the combined shareholding did not cross the relevant threshold and the material did not establish direct or indirect control under the test of inter-connected undertakings in section 2(g)(iv) of the MRTP Act, 1969. The connected firms were therefore not related persons for valuation purposes.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant and the connected firms were "related persons" for valuation under section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and whether the shareholding of close relatives could be added for determining the 50% control threshold.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in the appellant's own matter and held that the statutory scheme did not permit clubbing of the shareholding of close relatives for the purpose of determining relationship or control. The expression "related person" had to be applied in accordance with the language of section 4, and the adjudicating authorities could not enlarge it by importing a basis not found in the statute. On the facts, the combined shareholding of the concerned partners did not cross the relevant threshold and the material did not establish direct or indirect control so as to satisfy the test of inter-connected undertakings under section 2(g)(iv) of the MRTP Act, 1969.

Conclusion: The appellant and the connected firms were not related persons for valuation purposes, and the impugned order could not be sustained.

---