1988 (1) TMI 138

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... quarters ending 31-03-1975 and 30-09-1975 on the basis of discount of 25% and 20%, respectively. The departmental officers approved these price lists. When the new Section 4 came into force w.e.f. 01-10-1975, with its concept of 'related person', the Appellants submitted a price list in Part-IV and claimed the discount of 15%. Part-IV proforma of the price list applied to cases where the manufacturer sold his products to or through a related person in terms of Section 4(4)(c) of the Act. The Appellants declared the discount of 15% in their price list. The price list as submitted, was approved by the departmental officers. Later on, their investigation revealed that the sole selling agent of the Appellants was not allowing the discount unif....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....To take up the question of related person first, the appellants invited our attention to the Partnership Deeds of the Manufacturing Firm and the selling firm according to which the names and shareholdings of the partners are as under :- MANUFACTURING FIRM   SOLE SELLING AGENT FIRM S/Shri   S/Shri 1. Pratap Narain Dube - 25%   1. Kanhaiya Bux Singh - 25% 2. Gajadhar Lal Dwivedi - 40%   2. Kuldip Dube - 25% 3. Birendra Narain Dube - 35%   3. Luxmi Narain Dube - 25%     4. Jagat Narain Dube - 25% 3. The appellants stated across the bar that of the three partners of the manufacturing firm, i.e. appellants, the first two partners were not related to any par....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sons in the distributor firm held together only 50% shares in the distributor firm. In other words, they too did not have a majority vote in commercial decision making in the distributor firm. 5. Regarding the limitation, the appellants stated that in view of the finding of the Appellate Collector in their favour that there was no suppression, only the normal time limit of six months as in force on the date of issue of the Show Cause Notice applied [vide 1984 (17) E.L.T. 331/ (Tribunal - Larger Bench) - Atma Steels, para 101]. Since the Show Cause Notice had been issued on 22-04-1978, the demand, if at all maintainable, could only be for the period from 23-10-1977 to 31-03-1978 and not the way the Appellate Collector had calculated. 6....