I.J. Rao, Member (T)

1. We heard Shri Gopal Prasad, the learned Consultant in support of the appeal. According to him the issue involved in this matter is what should be the value for purposes of assessment of Central Excise duty when out of seven distributors two are alleged to be related persons. Shri Gopal Prasad in this context made the following submissions:

(i) Without conceding but assuming that two of the distributors are related persons and the other five distributors are still there and the price at which the goods are sold to them (the same price to the two distributors) is the assessable value.

(ii) Merely giving a warranty does not make the distributor a related person of the assessee.

(iii) A distributor is not automatically a related person unless he is a relative [Union of India and Ors. v. Bombay Tyres International Ltd. and Ors. -1983 (14) ELT 1896 (SC)].

2. Shri Gopal Prasad submitted that in his letter dated 28-5-1979 to the Assistant Collector he disclosed the names of all the distributors and the pattern of sales. He submitted that in these circumstances, price list No. 2/79 as filed by the appellants should form the basis of assessment.

3. Smt. Baliga, the lea