https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100480 The court determined that ASA could not be considered a related person to the First Respondent under Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excise Act, as the evidence did not establish a relationship. The inclusion of advertisement expenses in the assessable value of clocks was rejected, and no differential duty could be demanded based on the sales price to ASA. The demand for such duty was deemed time-barred, as the Department was aware of the relationship facts before the demand period began. The Commissioner's decision was upheld, favoring the Respondents and rejecting the Revenue's appeals. en-us Thu, 01 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Feb 2012 18:14:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100480 The court determined that ASA could not be considered a related person to the First Respondent under Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excise Act, as the evidence did not establish a relationship. The inclusion of advertisement expenses in the assessable value of clocks was rejected, and no differential duty could be demanded based on the sales price to ASA. The demand for such duty was deemed time-barred, as the Department was aware of the relationship facts before the demand period began. The Commissioner's decision was upheld, favoring the Respondents and rejecting the Revenue's appeals. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 01 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100480