1985 (4) TMI 294

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vision application filed before the Government of India which on transfer is being treated as an appeal. 2. The appellants are licensed manufacturers of typewriters, calculators and adding machines. They also manufacture spare parts for these machines. They submitted their classification and price lists and opted to avail the concession granted under Notification No. 120/75-C.E., dated 30-4-197 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... butors. 3. Shri M. Chandrasekharan, Advocate appeared for the appellants and urged that the distributors should not be treated as related persons. He emphasised that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 120/75-C.E. He relied on the decision reported in 1984 (17) E.L.T. 313 (S.C.) (Union of India and others v. Atic Industries Ltd.) wherein the concept of related perso .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Supreme Court in the decision cited supra. In paragraph 5 the Hon ble Supreme Court has observed as follow : ....... What the first part of the definition requires is that the person who is sought to he branded as a related person must be a person who is so associated with the assessee that they have interest, directly or indirectly, in the business of each other. It is not enough that the a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nce, so long as each has got some interest, direct or indirect in the business of the other. In the show cause notice it is mentioned that M/s. Saradha Agencies, M/s. Forbes and Forbes Cambell Co. Ltd., M/s. Continental Commercial Company Ltd. and M/s. Ciciko Machines Pvt. Ltd., Calcutta, the distributors of the appellants are related persons. Admittedly, some of these are limited companies .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... here is also no proof that the appellants had any direct or indirect interest in the business of the distributors. Even the Appellate Collector has referred to the sale of spare parts to M/s. Chellur Corporation. It is not the volume or the quantity of the sale at the factory gate, but the fact that the goods produced in this factory and sold through the distributors was readily available to any p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X