This was companytested by the appellant before the Collector Appeals who by his order dated July 27, 1984 took the view that the distributors were number related per sons, on the basis of the decision of this Court in the case of Union of India Ors.
1430 36 NM of 1987.
Against this decision, the appellant preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.4.1987 of the Custom Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, South Regional Tri bunal, Madras in Appeal Nos.
The appellant companyplied with this direc tion under protest taking up the companytention that the dis tributors were also a class of independent buyers.
This companytention was rejected by the Assist ant Collector and on the ground that except in respect of sales to wholesale distributors primary wholesellers and E. manufacturers, the excise duty had been paid by the appellant voluntarily.
The price lists filed in Part II related to sales to industrial buyers, Government Bodies and so on who were admittedly number related persons regarding the appellant.
174, to 176 and 240 to 243 of 1986 MAS in Order No.
Act came into force from October 1, 1975 and, as from that date, the Department took the view that sales by the appellant to its distributors would be companysidered as sales to related per sons.
Anil B. Divan, H.K. Dutt, S. Ramasubramanium, Krishna Srinivasan and Ms. Midula Ray for the Appellant.
The Department, therefore, directed the appellant to file price lists in Part IV in the form prescribed for sales to related persons.
247 of 1987.
It was regarding the price lists filed under Part IV that the Assistant Collector on the basis of the aforesaid view directed the appellant to file revised price lists showing a discount of 12 1/2 from the price at which the goods sup plied by the appellant were sold by their distributors to independent buyers.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
K. Ganguli, A. Subba Rao and P. Parmeshwaran for the Respondent.
The period with which we are companycerned in these appeals is the period from October 1, 1975 to July 21, 1984.
The facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows.
The marketing pattern of the appellant was that they sold goods in the wholesale to O.E. manufacturers, Transport Undertakings and Government Bodies.
The requirements of the replacement market were met by the appellant by sale in the wholesale to other persons who were designated by the appel lant as distributors primary wholesale buyers on the basis of agreements with such distributors.
The amendment to section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 herein after referred to as the Central Excises.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KANIA, J. These appeals arise from a judgment of the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal South Regional Bench at Madras.
These price lists were duly approved.
The appellant is a manufacturer of motor vehicle parts falling under Item 34 A of the Central Excise Tariff and companyponents for I.C. Engines falling under Item 68 of the said Tariff.
This claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector, who took the view that the distributors were related persons and hence the prices charged by these distributors to their purchasers should be taken as the assessable value.
The appellant filed the price lists in Part II, Part IV and Part VI.
