1986 (5) TMI 132

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....has confirmed two show cause cum demand notices amounting to Rs. 1,17,841.59 and Rs. 69,788.55. He further adjudged that the appellants are not giving discount to the consumers who purchase scooter from them directly. The dealers book orders on behalf of the appellants and execute such orders for realisation of the price of the goods sold and give after sale services to the customers. Thus for rendering these services the appellants give a commission to the dealer. Thus the commission to the dealer/selling agents for services rendered by them as agents, cannot be considered to be trade discount. 2. Being aggrieved by the above impugned order passed by the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise, Dn. II, Ahmedabad, the appellants have filed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....evoked by the Appellate authority. He cited Calcutta High Court's decision in the case of Union Carbide v. Union of India - 1985 (22) E.L.T. 729. 4. On the merit side also he stated that the Assistant Collector has termed the distributors as 'related person' and decided the case, but the show cause notice did not mention anything about the 'related person'. In the case of Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International [1983 E.L.T. 1896 (S.C.)] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided that all the distributors are not 'related persons'. Only those distributors, who are relatives as defined in the Companies Act, 1956 are to be treated as 'related persons'. He also stated that the Assistant Collector has not allowed reduction of commission o....