https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85505 The appellate court set aside the orders confirming demands for a differential duty between a manufacturer and buyer, as the department failed to prove the buyer was a "related person." The court emphasized the necessity of mutual interest for determining related persons under the Act, highlighting that personal relationships alone are insufficient. The court also noted that the transaction appeared to be at arm's length and on a principal-to-principal basis, with no evidence of mutual interest. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned orders were overturned. en-us Mon, 01 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Aug 2011 14:51:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85505 The appellate court set aside the orders confirming demands for a differential duty between a manufacturer and buyer, as the department failed to prove the buyer was a "related person." The court emphasized the necessity of mutual interest for determining related persons under the Act, highlighting that personal relationships alone are insufficient. The court also noted that the transaction appeared to be at arm's length and on a principal-to-principal basis, with no evidence of mutual interest. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned orders were overturned. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 01 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85505