https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43459 The court held that the petitioner and respondent No. 4 were not 'related persons,' lacked mutuality of interest, and the amount retained by respondent No. 4 was a post-manufacturing expense. The transactions were on a principal-to-principal basis. The impugned order was set aside, and the petition succeeded with costs. Respondents were directed to refund excess excise duty collected, along with interest at 12% per annum, within three months. en-us Wed, 17 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Jun 2010 11:57:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43459 The court held that the petitioner and respondent No. 4 were not 'related persons,' lacked mutuality of interest, and the amount retained by respondent No. 4 was a post-manufacturing expense. The transactions were on a principal-to-principal basis. The impugned order was set aside, and the petition succeeded with costs. Respondents were directed to refund excess excise duty collected, along with interest at 12% per annum, within three months. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 17 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43459