Related person under excise law requires proof of mutual business interest, not merely a distributor label.

Wholesale buyers are not treated as "related persons" under section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 merely because a sales agreement describes them as distributors; mutual business interest beyond ordinary commercial dealings must be shown, and the label alone is insufficient. Sales to staff and labourers at concessional rates form a separate buyer class for pricing purposes, so the relevant price list must be filed in Part IV and not Part V. The limitation objection to the appeal was not sustained because the appellants had sought a personal hearing and were denied an opportunity to explain timeliness.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal before the Appellate Collector was time-barred and liable to be rejected without hearing; (ii) Whether wholesale buyers described as distributors in the sales agreement were "related persons" within the meaning of section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944; (iii) Whether sales to staff and labourers at concessional rates constituted a distinct class of buyers requiring a price list in Part IV instead of Part V.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal before the Appellate Collector was time-barred and liable to be rejected without hearing.

Analysis: The revision authority found that the Appellate Collector had proceeded on a different order and had not given reasons for treating the appeal as directed against that order. It was also noted that the appellants had sought personal hearing, and denial of that opportunity deprived them of the chance to explain that the appeal was within time.

Conclusion: The objection of limitation was not upheld, and the appellate order was held not maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether wholesale buyers described as distributors in the sales agreement were "related persons" within the meaning of section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: The agreement did not contain any restrictive term showing a relationship beyond ordinary commercial dealings. There was no material to show any direct or indirect interest in each other's business beyond the normal interest arising from sale and purchase. Mere description of the buyers as distributors was treated as insufficient to attract the inclusive definition of related person.

Conclusion: The wholesale buyers were not "related persons" under section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Issue (iii): Whether sales to staff and labourers at concessional rates constituted a distinct class of buyers requiring a price list in Part IV instead of Part V.

Analysis: Sales to staff and labourers were treated as a separate category from the ordinary buyer class for pricing purposes.

Conclusion: The price list for such sales was required to be submitted in Part IV and not Part V.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the order-in-appeal was set aside, and the dispute was resolved in favour of the applicants on the substantive issues decided.

Ratio Decidendi: A buyer is not a "related person" merely because the seller labels it a distributor; there must be evidence of mutual interest in the business beyond normal commercial dealings.

---