https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40633 The Court held that the concept of "related person" introduced in the amended Section 4 of the Excise Act is beyond the legislative competence of Parliament as it encroaches upon State List territory. Additionally, it was determined that the manufacturer and the buyer in the case are not "related persons" as defined in the Excise Act. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to cancel orders, refund collected sums, pay costs incurred by the petitioner, and finalize calculations on excess excise duty payments. The writ's operation was stayed for two months to allow for a potential appeal to the Supreme Court. en-us Wed, 21 Feb 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 May 2010 12:22:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40633 The Court held that the concept of "related person" introduced in the amended Section 4 of the Excise Act is beyond the legislative competence of Parliament as it encroaches upon State List territory. Additionally, it was determined that the manufacturer and the buyer in the case are not "related persons" as defined in the Excise Act. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to cancel orders, refund collected sums, pay costs incurred by the petitioner, and finalize calculations on excess excise duty payments. The writ's operation was stayed for two months to allow for a potential appeal to the Supreme Court. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 21 Feb 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40633