1980 (4) TMI 124

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e course of Personal hearing and have examined the records of the case. 2. The Advocate Shri J. Banerjee who appeared on behalf of the applicants mainly argued on two issues namely: (i) The question of time bar regarding filing of the appeal against the order-in-original; and (ii) The merit of the case on the question of what constitutes a 'related person' under the new Sec. 4 of the Central E .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Had the opportunity been given to appear before him the applicants could have explained to him that their appeal was in time and not time barred as held by him. The appellate order is, therefore, not maintainable. 4. Government further observe that on merits the applicants have a case for consideration. The point for decision is whether or not a wholesale buyer becomes a related person simply d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... med as distributors in the sales agreement and this cannot be treated as 'related person' within the meaning of Sec. 4(4)(c) of the said Act. 5. The Advocate raised another minor question which is whether the sales made to staff and labourers at concessional rates should be treated as a different class of buyers and whether price list submitted for this should be in Part IV or Part V. Government .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X