Judgment

( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred from the decision of the Tribunal by which it rejected the appeal preferred by the appellant from the order of the collector (Appeals), Central Excise, Ahmedabad. Both the fora have concurrently held that for the purpose of valuation of the respondents products under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, as it stood at the relevant period of time, Bulsara Hygiene Products Ltd. which marketed the appellants goods could not be said to be related person.

( 2 ) THE appellant has questioned the finding on the factual basis (7) that both the assessee and BHPL had an equal interest in a partnership concern, namely, Bulsara extrusions; and (2) that they had one common Director and that one of the Directors of the assessee was the Company Secretary in bhpl.

( 3 ) THE decision of this Court in Union of India v. Atic Industries Ltd. has clearly stated that for the purpose of Section 4, a concern would be taken to be a related person if there is a reciprocity of interest between the assessee and such allegedly related person, interest being defined as shareholding. The interest claimed in this case by the appellant is not an interest of the assessee