TMI Blog1986 (5) TMI 132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. Girnar Scooters Ltd., Ahmedabad under new management of M/s. Gujarat Narmada Auto Ltd., against the Order-in-Original No. V-34(3-26)DA/85/827, dated 23.1.1986 passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Dn. II, Ahmedabad wherein he 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 disc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -84 and Rs. 176.65 in 1984-85. Total accumulated loss till 1984-85 comes to Rs. 343.39 lakhs. Taking into consideration the losses suffered by the appellants, I dispensed with the condition of pre-deposit and allowed Shri Willingdon Christian, Advocate and Shri Bharat C. Patel, Senior Executive Officer representing the appellants to argue on merit on 8.4.1986. The appellants advocate reiterated th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 173C for revoking the approved price-list by the same officer. The price-list can be revoked 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 n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntral Excise, Nellore [1986 (23) E.L.T. 8(SC)] wherein it has been held that even though the dealers are required to deposit Rs. 6000/- as security and entitled to get a fixed commission of Rs. 110/145 on each Moped, and dealer is to have its own showroom, service station, repair shop, store room and salesmen etc. to give three free services to every vehicle sold by him and dealer is to get Rs.4/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wed the claim of the appellants that the commission should be deducted from the assessable value because distributor is a related person. In view of the Supreme Court s judgment in the case of Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International and others and also in the case of Moped India Ltd. v. Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Nellore [1986 (23) E.L.T. 8 (SC)] the distributors of dealers are not t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
