https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44883 SC allowed the appeal, holding that "related person" under Section 4(4)(c) requires direct or indirect interest between manufacturer and buyer and that lifting the corporate veil depends on factual inquiry into who controls both entities. Authorities may probe common control to apply the proviso to Section 4(1)(a), but deeming under (a) applies only if the buyer is not related and price is sole consideration. On the facts, although common directors existed, subsequent treatment by authorities treated the distributor as not related and the matter-being historic-did not merit further inquiry; the Appellate Tribunal's order was set aside. en-us Tue, 31 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Oct 2025 15:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44883 SC allowed the appeal, holding that "related person" under Section 4(4)(c) requires direct or indirect interest between manufacturer and buyer and that lifting the corporate veil depends on factual inquiry into who controls both entities. Authorities may probe common control to apply the proviso to Section 4(1)(a), but deeming under (a) applies only if the buyer is not related and price is sole consideration. On the facts, although common directors existed, subsequent treatment by authorities treated the distributor as not related and the matter-being historic-did not merit further inquiry; the Appellate Tribunal's order was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 31 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44883