TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (10) TMI 142
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the reference letter sent by the Appellate Collector to the Central Government for initiating revision proceedings under the then Section 36(2) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The Appellate Collector sent him a copy of his said letter dated 14/15-4-1980 on 29-8-1988. However, the Respondent is still not represented even though he was duly notified of the date of hearing and he was well aware of it. There is no request for adjournment on record. In the circumstances, the Bench decided to take up the hearing and disposal of this appeal on merits. 2. We have heard the ld. Representative of the Department and have perused the record, particularly the written submissions made by the Respondent in reply to the Central Government'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpany was given 10% discount on the sale price of each Trailer. The contention of the Respondent is, and this is also the view of the Appellate Collector, that it was just a coincident that the orders for the above particular model came only through the agency company. The Respondent makes a hypothetical statement that if other agents/dealers had also placed orders for the aforesaid particular model, they too would have been given the same 10% discount. The Respondent also contends that mutuality of business interest was not established just because the proprietor of the manufacturing unit was also the 'Kartha' of the HUF owned agency company. The Respondent pleads that the manufacturing unit and the agency company were two physically separ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, under Section 4(4) (c), the degree of mutual interest is not material. The existence of some interest is all that is required [1984 (17) E.L.T. 323 (SC) - U.O.I. v. Atic Industries Ltd.] and that was there in the two units. In fact, the set-up was such that there was identity of interest as between the two units. For reaching this conclusion, we rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Mohanlal Maganlal Bhavsar v. U.O.I. [1986 (23) ELT 3 (SC)]. The case also came under the second part of the definition because other members of the HUF owning the agency company (the distributor) were all close relatives of the proprietor who owned the manufacturing company and the said proprietor was also the Kartha of the di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s a uniform discount of 10%". If the fact was as stated above by the Respondent, there was no actual sale of Trailers by the Respondent to the 'dealers', the 'dealers' were only his agents and the so-called 'discount' of 10% was only agent's commission given to them for booking orders for the Trailers. Such commission is not deductible as a trade discount under Section 4, vide 1984 (17) E.L.T. 607 (SC) - M/s. Coromondal Fertilisers Ltd. 7. It is also not clear as to whom the 'dealers' and the agency company disposed of the Trailers - whether to direct users or to wholesale dealers. Further, there is nothing on record to Show whether the particular model of Trailer covered by price-list No. 13/76, which is in dispute here, had bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reduction of reasonable sale expenses from the retail price so as to make it a notional wholesale price. 8. The Respondent does not deny that all disposals of the particular model in dispute were only through the agency company. However, he calls it a coincident. His version would be acceptable only if he can prove that he genuinely offered this model to all other dealers also at the same price. Otherwise, it would be reasonable to conclude that this particular model was, by design, marketed only through the agency company which was a 'related person' of the Respondent. In that event, the value would have to be determined in terms of proviso (iii) to Section 4(1) (a) or in terms of Rule 6(c) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 19....