Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2017 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 64 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTDemand of differential duty - parties are related or not - loan licencee arrangement - The issue at hand is whether the petitioners, the seller and M/s. Boots, the purchaser/buyer are related persons - Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 - Held that: - M/s. Boots, which was earlier manufacturer of Betonin has now become a so called wholesaler and Borachem, who was earlier paid job work charges has now entered into manufacturing by floating a new company, namely, Biostar - e referred to the definition of the term “related person”, the binding judgments interpreting it only to emphasise that the foundation or basis of the Commissioner's conclusion is ex-facie contrary thereto. It is wholly unsustainable in law - It is significant that when M/s. Boots surrendered its licence and Biostar obtained it for manufacture of Betonin, four directors were common in Biostar and Borachem Industries Ltd. the licence was possessed by M/s. Boots and when it surrendered the same to Biostar, beyond the relationship of manufacturer and distributor, nothing has been placed on record, which would fulfill the ingredients of clause (c) of sub-section (4) of section 4 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 - M/s. Boots is not concerned as to whether the Petitioners make a loss or profit in the business and similarly, the petitioners are not concerned whether M/s. Boots makes a loss or profit in the onward sale of Betonin. They are not holding and subsidiary company - The foundation being totally weak and unsustainable in law, we cannot uphold the impugned order - Petition disposed of.
|