https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87509 Common directorship alone was insufficient to treat a sister concern as a related person for Central Excise valuation. The text states that no holding-subsidiary relationship was shown and no material established mutuality of interest in each other's business; on those facts, proviso (iii) to Section 4(1)(a) was also doubtful in application. The bulk discount therefore could not be disallowed on the footing of related-person pricing, and the departmental challenge failed, leaving the order dropping the proceedings undisturbed. en-us Mon, 03 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Sep 2011 15:10:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87509 Common directorship alone was insufficient to treat a sister concern as a related person for Central Excise valuation. The text states that no holding-subsidiary relationship was shown and no material established mutuality of interest in each other's business; on those facts, proviso (iii) to Section 4(1)(a) was also doubtful in application. The bulk discount therefore could not be disallowed on the footing of related-person pricing, and the departmental challenge failed, leaving the order dropping the proceedings undisturbed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 03 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87509