TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (4) TMI 294
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....D.R., for the Respondent. ORDER This is a revision 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....relationship between the appellants and the distributors. 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 I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp;The concept of "related person" has been considered by the 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 indir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss of the former may be indirect. That would not make any difference, 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 a....