https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47290 The court upheld the decision that BHPL was not a related person for product valuation under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, rejecting the appellant's appeal. The court clarified that common directorship and partnership in a third concern not directly related to the parties were irrelevant for determining related person status. Citing precedents, the court emphasized that reciprocity of interest, such as shareholding, was necessary to establish related person status. The appellant's claim did not meet this criterion. The court also dismissed the appellant's argument regarding advertisement costs, leading to the appeal's dismissal without costs. Subsequent appeals were disposed of accordingly. en-us Wed, 09 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Apr 2014 15:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47290 The court upheld the decision that BHPL was not a related person for product valuation under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, rejecting the appellant's appeal. The court clarified that common directorship and partnership in a third concern not directly related to the parties were irrelevant for determining related person status. Citing precedents, the court emphasized that reciprocity of interest, such as shareholding, was necessary to establish related person status. The appellant's claim did not meet this criterion. The court also dismissed the appellant's argument regarding advertisement costs, leading to the appeal's dismissal without costs. Subsequent appeals were disposed of accordingly. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 09 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47290